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

[Ben E Lou]

Oh...and Clay has metioned that S.T. injuries may be a bit too high, and he's going to address that, apparently. That doesn't change the fact that the half-season injury report you listed (only 42 in a half-season) is incredibly low. Think about it; if your organization is full, that means that over half the guys in your organization never got one minor nick in half of a season. Only four players got into 162 games last season. Sure, some of the other 250 or so everyday position players were replaced or needed a breather, but the great majority of them were injured at some point during the 162-game season.

[mgadfly]

(1) You HAVE to micromanage (at least open it up to look and see if anyone else was injured on the same day).

(2) Those other things I mentioned are important when you are a real coach (I only know one coach at the professional level personally, but I'd bet others agree with him about those other things--especially the countless interactions with your players.)

(3) I'm not sure your impression of the amount of injuries is correct (I'd like to know how many injuries really are the norm).

(4) I wasn't trying to give the impression that they were unrealstic, only that it was the most annoying part of the game for me. (I'm not sure what realistic is, but as I've said I've never seen a team have so many injuries as my BM teams, even when I've set the sliders to an exreme and hired the best cyber-doctors money can buy. My impression has nothing to do with what is a realistic amount of injuries, just that it seems high and so far you've said it seems low.)

(5) I'd agree that minor league injuries should be optional of whether you have to hear about them or not (though a real manager would hear, and we are trying to be as realistic as possible, so maybe ... never mind.).

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Oh...and Clay has metioned that S.T. injuries may be a bit too high, and he's going to address that, apparently. That doesn't change the fact that the half-season injury report you listed (only 42 in a half-season) is incredibly low. Think about it; if your organization is full, that means that over half the guys in your organization never got one minor nick in half of a season. Only four players got into 162 games last season. Sure, some of the other 250 or so everyday position players were replaced or needed a breather, but the great majority of them were injured at some point during the 162-game season.

My organization is far from full. I have 5 guys in AAA. Real teams have 25.

It looks like I have about 20 extra position players and 15 extra pitchers. So I've had 42 injuries for about 60 players. That seems a little high to me, feel free to disagree.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

(1) You HAVE to micromanage (at least open it up to look and see if anyone else was injured on the same day).

I'm not finding that I have to micromanage it at all if I don't want to. The AI just pulls up the next guy in order on your roster who can play that position, from what I can tell, so I just set 'em up in the order I'd want 'em used from the start. A quick glance to see if anyone else got injured is nothing, though.

[jbmagic]

is there ghost players like in ootp if there less than 25 players at a minor league level?

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm not finding that I have to micromanage it at all if I don't want to. The AI just pulls up the next guy in order on your roster who can play that position, from what I can tell, so I just set 'em up in the order I'd want 'em used from the start. A quick glance to see if anyone else got injured is nothing, though.

does cpu put back the player when healthy again in the starting lineup?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

It looks like I have about 20 extra position players and 15 extra pitchers. So I've had 42 injuries for about 60 players. That seems a little high to me, feel free to disagree.

I still don't think so. You had 10 DL-causing injuries over the course of a half of a season, for over 2 teams' worth of players, so that would be rougly 10 DL-causing injuries for an MLB team over the course of an entire season.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm not finding that I have to micromanage it at all if I don't want to. The AI just pulls up the next guy in order on your roster who can play that position, from what I can tell, so I just set 'em up in the order I'd want 'em used from the start. A quick glance to see if anyone else got injured is nothing, though.

Well my problem is that I need to know when a pitcher is going to miss his next start. So I set the notify me if someone is injured for more than 4 days. (I'd just let the Alt pitcher take the start but because I often have 2 pitchers with four day injuries, I have to check.)

Then every time a player is injured for four days I get a message, but it doesn't tell me everyone that was injured that day, so I have to go in and check to see if anyone else was hurt.

That's the problem that I have.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

is there ghost players like in ootp if there less than 25 players at a minor league level?

I don't think so. I think your AAA guys generate stats, but I haven't seen where there actually is a AAA team playing games.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

does cpu put back the player when healthy again in the starting lineup?

Yes.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

Well my problem is that I need to know when a pitcher is going to miss his next start. So I set the notify me if someone is injured for more than 4 days. (I'd just let the Alt pitcher take the start but because I often have 2 pitchers with four day injuries, I have to check.)

If you set a starter as the first guy on your AAA list, he becomes the 2nd alternate starter.

Then every time a player is injured for four days I get a message, but it doesn't tell me everyone that was injured that day, so I have to go in and check to see if anyone else was hurt.

But that takes virtually no time.

CTRL-P {Look}
ALT-L {look}
F12

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I don't think so. I think your AAA guys generate stats, but I haven't seen where there actually is a AAA team playing games.

I'm not sure how this works. I know that if you have two shortstops in AAA, only one will accumulate everyday stats, though, so maybe.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I still don't think so. You had 10 DL-causing injuries over the course of a half of a season, for over 2 teams' worth of players, so that would be rougly 10 DL-causing injuries for an MLB team over the course of an entire season.

Yeah, but that is not realistic. If a player is going to be "out" 7 days most teams drop them on the DL and give them an extra week of rehab (unless the player is someone they have to have back as soon as possible). So that'd double the amount which seems high (to me).

The other problem I have is that the computer managers are making these changes, which means we even if we accept your view that this amount of injuries is realistic, we still have to sacrifice realism on the other end (managing decisions). Most teams make the changes, and as far as I can tell, the computer is making the appropriate changes when a player is injured as well.

[mgadfly]

6 of my 10 active roster pitchers are out for my opener after spring training. Including four of five starters.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

Yeah, but that is not realistic. If a player is going to be "out" 7 days most teams drop them on the DL and give them an extra week of rehab (unless the player is someone they have to have back as soon as possible).

Maybe that's a manager-to-manager thing. I know that Cox doesn't do it that way. If a guy's going to miss 5 or 6 games, he usually doesn't go on the DL.

Most teams make the changes, and as far as I can tell, the computer is making the appropriate changes when a player is injured as well.

OK. You lost me here. If the computer does it approrpriately, then what's the problem?

[mgadfly]

Your top AAA pitcher is not your 2nd Alt. I just simmed a season where I put long term injury guys in the starting roles and not once did it allow the AAA guy to pitch a single inning.

[jbmagic]

do you guys see the player who the cpu puts in the lineup if there a player injure in starting lineup?

and from above you guys say the cpu puts the player back in lineup when healthy.


is there a way for the cpu not to do these things on its own if you want?

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Maybe that's a manager-to-manager thing. I know that Cox doesn't do it that way. If a guy's going to miss 5 or 6 games, he usually doesn't go on the DL.

OK. You lost me here. If the computer does it approrpriately, then what's the problem?

Yeah, I knew I wasn't saying it correctly because even I couldn't understand what I was trying to say.

If the computer adjusts the lineup any differently than what is done when a player is injured on a human team where the human coach doesn't want to micromanage, then we have the computer teams doing X and one human team doing Y.

I don't know if you follow, so you can ignore.

Example:

Human team:
SP1 gets injured for 13 days. The ALT pitcher fills in.

Computer Team:
SP1 gets injured for 13 days. The computer team reshuffles line up moving up a non-injured player from AAA to get innings.

The computer team is taking a different action than the human team (because we don't want to micromanage). This becomes important when two starters are injured for less than 14 days at the same time because the human team won't have the starters to make the starts while the computer team will reshuffle and have the needed starters.

I'm not actually sure what the computer team does though.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

do you guys see the player who the cpu puts in the lineup if there a player injure in starting lineup?

and from above you guys say the cpu puts the player back in lineup when healthy.


is there a way for the cpu not to do these things on its own if you want?

What actually happens is this:

Your starters never change unless you change them. However, if a starter is injured at game time the computer will find a replacement to put in the game for him. You have an option to allow the computer to reshuffle the batting order or to just have the replacement hit in the spot that the injured player was in. When your player gets healthy he will still be in his starting role and there will be no need for a replacement.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Im thinking about purchasing this game soon, what I would like to know is the situation as far as rosters and photo packs. Also, in most people's opinion is the game playable now or should I wait for a few more updates.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

Im thinking about purchasing this game soon, what I would like to know is the situation as far as rosters and photo packs. Also, in most people's opinion is the game playable now or should I wait for a few more updates.

Apart from excessive spring training injuries, there's an odd injury bug that needs to be addressed: injured players can get injured again while injured, sometimes *significantly* lowering their time away; it basically erases the old injury. I had a guy who was out for the season with an elbow or shoulder injury, then all of a sudden in mid-July he gets a sprained ankle and he's back 8 days later. That one has been reported to Clay, and I'd expect a fix soon. Right now it is the only thing stopping me from playing a serious career.

[Buccaneer]

SD, are you still simming a month's worth of games? How long does it take to do so, including stopping to manage injuries?

Has there been any recent experiences of anyone playing historical seasons?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Has there been any recent experiences of anyone playing historical seasons?

I'd be interested in replies to that question myself.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

Im thinking about purchasing this game soon, what I would like to know is the situation as far as rosters and photo packs. Also, in most people's opinion is the game playable now or should I wait for a few more updates.

I think the game is enjoyable now (though I don't know anything about roster and photo packs). I don't mind the injury bug that SD mentioned, I just chalk it up to a mis-diagnosis or for the religious a miracle.

For me the two most annoying parts of the game (whether realistic or not) is the amount of injuries and the inability to make a fair trade. Other than that players seem to be aging a lot better (thanks SD), building a team is enjoyable through free agency, and the ammy draft aint too bad (though I'd suggest tweaking generated talent a little, I think SD posted his earlier).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

SD, are you still simming a month's worth of games? How long does it take to do so, including stopping to manage injuries?

Yes, I do, but that's a tough question. I spend more time checking box scores (like when I promote a new starting pitcher), checking the minors for promotions/demotions/development at the end of each month, and making trades than I do actually simming it. I don't mess with injuries that are less than a week long, either. I started a career this morning with injuries at -70%, and had maybe four or five injuries in a little over half of a season that required my attention (three fairly serious: 1 out for the season, 1 one-month, and 1 three-month).

I just ran a quick test. With a team 18th in medical spending (rated C), in a month I had two injuries at the major league level that were longer than days, and then I ran the next month with injury contingency completely turned off, just to see what the actual sim time was: 7.76 seconds.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

the inability to make a fair trade

I confess I haven't played with this that much (since it worked fine in previous versions, I've concentrated on other things), but I made two trades when playing "seriously" this morning that seemed very fair. Obviously a small sample size, so I'd love to hear more about this...

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I confess I haven't played with this that much (since it worked fine in previous versions, I've concentrated on other things), but I made two trades when playing "seriously" this morning that seemed very fair. Obviously a small sample size, so I'd love to hear more about this...

Trades are terrible the AI always trys to screw you . But I got a fix though not elegant. I have switch to commissioner mode and force atry that I think isfair, kind of house rules. I can decide better than the AI what is fair. 10 players including Dave Ortiz, Trot Nixon, Derek Lowe and Manny Ramirez for Kim Byun Hyun is not whta I would call fair. Anyways the only thing that is really a poorly implemented part seems to be that injuries seem ok if you set the injury slider to -70 or -80%.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Maybe the other team doesnt want to take on Manny's contract, I think if the trade AI is somehow too hard then DONT change it. Most games involve you ripping off the CPU and having to create house rules to avoid this.

[Buccaneer]

For some, trading (along with free agency and drafting) is the most fun aspect of the game.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Ok I understand that but the Mogul trade AI has usually been pretty solid. The trade Galaril doesnt even make sense for the computer GM. I doubt the rockies would want to take on all that salary for him. I dont see a problem with that 1 example.

[Ben E Lou]

I think Galaril is talking about the AI-offered trades, where it does try to screw you. When I have offered the AI trades (at Mogul level), it has been tough, but reasonable. As TOSU mentioned, the Mogul trade AI has been pretty solid for several versions, and I see no indication that it isn't in this version. The only house rule I've used with it in the past was: no trades of a player differential of more than two, meaning no 4-for-1 or 5-for-2 trades, but 3-for-1 and 4-for-2 trades are fine. I haven't tried it in this version, but you used to be able to screw the AI somewhat by offering it a bunch of mediocre to decent players for one or two good ones, but that is easy to avoid doing with just a little restraint.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I confess I haven't played with this that much (since it worked fine in previous versions, I've concentrated on other things), but I made two trades when playing "seriously" this morning that seemed very fair. Obviously a small sample size, so I'd love to hear more about this...

I'm not the only one who has mentioned it, but I can rarely get the computer to make a fair trade. I wouldn't mind hearing about the trades you made.

This morning I was able to trade a border line (28 years old) All-Star SP (88 value) for a solid young catcher (77 value). It was the closest to a fair trade as I've had in a long while and I suspect it was because the pitcher had gone 20-4 with an era slightly under 3 the season before.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I think Galaril is talking about the AI-offered trades, where it does try to screw you. When I have offered the AI trades (at Mogul level), it has been tough, but reasonable. As TOSU mentioned, the Mogul trade AI has been pretty solid for several versions, and I see no indication that it isn't in this version. The only house rule I've used with it in the past was: no trades of a player differential of more than two, meaning no 4-for-1 or 5-for-2 trades, but 3-for-1 and 4-for-2 trades are fine. I haven't tried it in this version, but you used to be able to screw the AI somewhat by offering it a bunch of mediocre to decent players for one or two good ones, but that is easy to avoid doing with just a little restraint.

Thank you. That along with the shop player feature sound good.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I'm not the only one who has mentioned it, but I can rarely get the computer to make a fair trade. I wouldn't mind hearing about the trades you made.

This morning I was able to trade a border line (28 years old) All-Star SP (88 value) for a solid young catcher (77 value). It was the closest to a fair trade as I've had in a long while and I suspect it was because the pitcher had gone 20-4 with an era slightly under 3 the season before.

Really? That is one thing I definitely hadn't had a problem with. The CPU offers are stupid, and I never even pay attention to those, but if you put a player on the trading block, the computer will generally offer a decent player IF you're offering a decent player. It will not let you dump salary, though, unless you offer cash or some younger talent as bait.

[Ben E Lou]

OK...my trades this morning were:

APRIL 1, 2005
Rockies receive Ronaldo Sarabia (C) and Jolindo Tapia (2B)
Braves receive Ben Mulek (SP)

Sarabia is an 83/83 catcher. He's 26 years old, in the last year of a contract earning $3.95M. He has a solid-but-not-great bat (76 con/81 pwr), average arm (75), and is very good at handling pitchers (93). He's a career .265 hitter with a .443 slugging percentage. He's requested $4.9M for 7 years to re-sign.

Tapia is a solid-but-unproven 2B prospect, rated 70/83.

Mulek is an 84/84 SP. Hes's 30 years old, making $2.4M, and is signed through the end of next season. He has outstanding control (96), good endurance (90) and good-enough movement (85) and power (81). He's also very good at fielding his position (91).


OTHER TRADE:

JUNE 1, 2005
Astros receive Ty Iacona (RF), Sid Montoro (SP) and Brandon Miller (SP)
Braves receive Tom Davenport (SP)

Davenport is a very solid prospect: 22 years old, and rated 77/87. He's already rated 89 in movement and 86 in control.

Iacona is an 83/83 right fielder earning $2.3M and in the last year of his contract. He's a contact hitter (86), with ok power (75) and no speed (63), who is a good defensive right fielder.

Montoro is a 35-year-old SP who was rated 75/75 at the time of the trade, and is now (7/29) down to 73/73. He's making $1.35M and is in the last year of his contract. He started two games for the 'Stros after the trade, then got demoted to AAA. He still has 96 control and 85 power, though, so he might be useful, although his 69 movement is gonna cause him to give up some dingers.

Brandon Miller is a mediocre 25-year-old SP, rated 76/76. The worst thing about him is his 58 health rating, and the best is his 88 movement. He'll keep the ball in the park, if he's on the mound to pitch, that is.

[mgadfly]

I'm sure I'll get the hang of it then.

[mgadfly]

I suppose my problems are coming from trying to trade starters, rather than marginal starters or prospects. For example, I have 25 yr old, 91 overall, 96 contact, 94 power, 96 eye LF that hit .344 with 54 hrs last season. He is signed for $12.5 M for two more seasons, but he is worth it.

I go to the block, hit get offers and here is what is offered:

Toronto offers a 30 year old (77) pitcher who would never be promoted to the majors for me.
Boston offers a prospect, a 20 yr old 2B who is a 60/65 overall.
Cubs offer me two players, both over 30, one a starting pitcher (64 talent) and one a relief pitcher (66).
Nationals offer a 26 yo SP (66).
Texas offers a 30 yo RF (70).
SFG offers a 25 yo RF (65/66).

I know the salary is prohibitive here, but the best I could do is an over the hill pitcher that I'd have to put in AAA. So I guess the question I have is whether anyone is having any success trading stars for stars or stars for multiple good prospects?

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I suppose my problems are coming from trying to trade starters, rather than marginal starters or prospects. For example, I have 25 yr old, 91 overall, 96 contact, 94 power, 96 eye LF that hit .344 with 54 hrs last season. He is signed for $12.5 M for two more seasons, but he is worth it.

I go to the block, hit get offers and here is what is offered:

Toronto offers a 30 year old (77) pitcher who would never be promoted to the majors for me.
Boston offers a prospect, a 20 yr old 2B who is a 60/65 overall.
Cubs offer me two players, both over 30, one a starting pitcher (64 talent) and one a relief pitcher (66).
Nationals offer a 26 yo SP (66).
Texas offers a 30 yo RF (70).
SFG offers a 25 yo RF (65/66).

I know the salary is prohibitive here, but the best I could do is an over the hill pitcher that I'd have to put in AAA. So I guess the question I have is whether anyone is having any success trading stars for stars or stars for multiple good prospects?

I haven't tried "stars for stars" much, but honestly those are always hard to do. Who has extra stars that they can trade away? Try asking for prospects and see if you don't get offered a future star, or a guy ready to come up.

[HomerJSimpson]

dola: Yes I have gotten multiple good prospects for stars before. One time I picked up two, and one marginal. They all ended up starters, with the marginal becoming a gold-glover. Now, if that happened every time, I'd say it was too easy the other way.

[Ben E Lou]

I just put a 29-year-old SP, making $4M for four years, on the block, and was offered a 62/92 3B prospect. I also put a 34-year-old catcher rated 89 in the final year of a $4.9M contract on the block, and got offered a 65/97 prospect, and another team offered an 82/82 LF making $1.95M.

[Ben E Lou]

When was the last truly "star for star" trade in MLB?

[Arles]

Prob A-Rod for Soriano. Although, you could make the case Vazquez for RJ this offseason was close. But Javy has been stinking it up of late.

[Swaggs]

I have found that if you hit the shop player button, you get different results every time. Sometimes I get much better "available" players after three button presses.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I have found that if you hit the shop player button, you get different results every time. Sometimes I get much better "available" players after three button presses.

Cool, I'll give that a try.

[21C]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...was offered a 62/92 3B prospect...34-year-old catcher rated 89...got offered a 65/97 prospect...offered an 82/82 LF

Just curious, Ben. How accurate are the ratings that you are quoting? Are you number one in scouting so the ratings are +/- 0 ?

[Coop]

Wow, wow, wow...going into ST i had 0 injuries. Coming out 10 picthers and 2 batters on the DL. Jeez..some are out for awhiile

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by 21c

Just curious, Ben. How accurate are the ratings that you are quoting? Are you number one in scouting so the ratings are +/- 0 ?

Yes, #1.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

What actually happens is this:

Your starters never change unless you change them. However, if a starter is injured at game time the computer will find a replacement to put in the game for him. You have an option to allow the computer to reshuffle the batting order or to just have the replacement hit in the spot that the injured player was in. When your player gets healthy he will still be in his starting role and there will be no need for a replacement.

thanks

but if we wanted to take the injure player out of starting lineup we can. and replace him who ever we want. and cpu wont override what we just did i hope.




what you guys do about the cpu trying to rip the human player with silly trade offers? will this ever be fix?

[21C]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

what you guys do about the cpu trying to rip the human player with silly trade offers? will this ever be fix?

You can fix it by not accepting the offer/s or turning off Computer Offers Trades.

It's not a problem unless you feel compelled to accept the offers. As mentioned earlier in the thread, you can get more reasonable offers by using the Trading Block.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Exactly, the game would be entirely too easy if you were constantly bombarded with deals from the cpu that favored YOUR team.