Player morale

[scooterperpetual]

Re: Player morale

I check it when I make Roster moves or lineup moves.

[Comduklakis]

Re: Player morale

anyway to change a player's role outside of contract time? With the OFSM post trade deadline rosters, I have guys like Miguel Cabrera listed as bench and all my starters (even Zimmerman and Verlander) listed as bullpen. This makes them angry even though they are filling their regular roles as frontline starters.

[KBLover]

Re: Player morale

I'm done with the system until they refine it.

When I saw a player being angry with not making "league average performance" with a .900 OPS and a 139 wRC+, I was done.

That's so far beyond league average...yet he was angry that he was failing to be league average?

The roles thing doesn't make sense. What about hitting 2nd makes you more of a "Star" than hitting 4th (let alone why "being a star" is tied to where you hit - Trout batting 8th is no longer a star)? Do starting pitchers really gripe and cause problems for teams if they are #2 instead of #1? Do they really suffer a positive/negative impact to their ability to strike out hitters or locate their pitches?

Let it impact contract negotiations, let it impact player's perception of the clubhouse (maybe some guys don't like drama and will leave if a troublemaker isn't gone - maybe some guys thrive on drama or their leadership shines in those situations), let it generate news items that might stir up trouble in the clubhouse. If it has to impact performance (not sure if it should), let it do so when things go very much south.

Let it show the interaction between guys and managing the human resource of your team. Maybe then it will cause decisions, create challenges trying to appease a top talent that's unhappy about the clubhouse environment. Make some guys who might actually LIKE a more negative environment because it lets them be more outspoken, etc.

Bring manager styles and such into it. Maybe a fiery manager can keep a team of loudmouths playing well even though they make a lot of "tweetable moments" that you might wish they didn't. Maybe a skipper good at talking players "off the ledge" could make the difference between a guy bolting for FA or trying to stick it out...and then if that manager gets axed/doesn't return, neither does that guy. Coaches as well. Create relationships and play them out.

Really use it to flesh out the human side and not just very minor impacts on performance that probably don't even matter anyway. A handful of points isn't going to bat my eye one way or another. Gallo telling me in an e-mail that he's having second thoughts about extending after the season...THAT will get my attention. Fast.

[Vtownwaves]

Re: Player morale

KB, of all the people, I thought you would appreciate the morale more for its realism.

What makes batting 2nd more of a star than 4th? Amounts of batting attempts. Everyone who plays 9 innings will get at least 3 attempts. The #1 has the best opportunity for the most at bats. For every hit you get in a game, someone else gets an extra at bat. That means you need 3 hits, potentially against kershaw or fernandez or arrieta before the #4 gets a 4th attempt.

While 4-6 is the power section of the lineup and usually homeruns make you a star, the game is saying you are not as important to the team or as much a star if you arent hitting in the first inning every game(1-3). Those are the stars. You're an everyday player barring extreme ratings that fit the 4-6th spots. Having Trout bat 8th is like saying we dont even trust you to get on base, you're right before the pitcher or WORST BATTER. You're barely an everyday player to us based on other abilities. Now can you have star talent in those spots, SURE! But they arent stars for the team if they arent in the top 3-4 at bats.

Its just like saying If I have jon lester in the 2nd spot of the rotation, why isnt he an ace? He isnt your ace, the ace is #1 in the rotation, end of story. Now a team can have 5 "ace" quality players in their rotation but thats not their role if they're not in the #1 spot. And dont get me started on if they mind whether or not they're the ace. OF COURSE THEY DO! OF COURSE IT AFFECTS THEM MENTALLY! "why arent I good enough to be the ace?" "Im better than so and so! I'll prove it!" Then what happens? They psych themselves up too much and throw a bad game. Thats morale in effect, right there.

Some people just dont function well away from home. They get home sick so they cant concentrate as well, they then perform worse than their potential. Some need GREAT coaches to get the best out of them, others can be their best on the worst team in the league, doesnt phase them. Some people think way too much about money, and how much they think they're worth. And it gets them off their game. They think they're being slighted or under appreciated by management. This **** all effects the mind, to varying degrees per person.

I think morale is the best new part of this game. I think it takes a step closer to reality where you can be a great player and just not be happy. And that unhappiness will tank your performance. And then you go to a better team and you set records like RANDY MOSS after he got traded by Oakland to NE. Its one of the realest parts of any sport game and can only get better as they further tweak and redefine things.

Like personally my only gripe is close to home for american players. Love the international set up where its other teammates from the same country. But It should be in circles not on straight lines for american and even canadian/mexican players. A guy like Kyle Schwarber should be ecstatic(Dark Green Face) playing for the cubs in "close to home". He's no more than 300 miles from his home town(288). He shouldnt have to be EXACTLY in Ohio, but just the midwest. Or he should at least be happy(light green), not just grey content. Same with Arrieta being from missouri but playing for the cubs, should be light green but he's grey.

But if you want to be near new york and you play for anyone on the east coast, you're green, you're at least happy. Thats ridiculous when you compare the distances...

[Comduklakis]

Re: Player morale

I like the idea in theory, but if you can't change someone's role to appease them except at contract time, what's the point? Much like nba2k's morale system, the idea is great, but the execution seems off.

[KBLover]

Re: Player morale

KB, of all the people, I thought you would appreciate the morale more for its realism.

Except it's not particularly realistic. There's no evidence any of the things in morale actually has a notable impact on player performance.

And...what's realistic about a wRC+ of 139 FAILING to be league average? And that's using my franchise. Not just comparing to irl. So in the environment Piscotty (the guy I'm talking about) is in, he performed 39% better than the average player.

That's failing to be league average?

What makes batting 2nd more of a star than 4th? Amounts of batting attempts. Everyone who plays 9 innings will get at least 3 attempts. The #1 has the best opportunity for the most at bats. For every hit you get in a game, someone else gets an extra at bat. That means you need 3 hits, potentially against kershaw or fernandez or arrieta before the #4 gets a 4th attempt.

Order of the batting lineup has been shown not to matter very much, unless you do something really crazy (like bat the pitcher leadoff), which no one really ever does.

Plus, that's not "star". A "star" is something that is what the player is regardless of his order in the lineup. Do you think Mike Trout will suddenly hit .250 with less power because he's 8th, and do so because "he's unhappy about not being 2nd?" He may do so, especially in the NL, because he'll pitched around for forever and a day, but it won't be because he's "angry" about being 8th.

While 4-6 is the power section of the lineup and usually homeruns make you a star, the game is saying you are not as important to the team or as much a star if you arent hitting in the first inning every game(1-3). Those are the stars. You're an everyday player barring extreme ratings that fit the 4-6th spots.

Which doesn't make an ounce of sense.

The 4-6 spots, even under traditional lineup methodology, is the run-producing area. This what the area of the lineup that makes the offense go. In a sabermetric view, #4 and #5 are arguably two of the four most important spots in the lineup for run production. To say "you're not making him important to your team" when I'm putting him in the #4 spot, which by either reckoning/model of lineup construction, is highly important, is silly to me.

Its just like saying If I have jon lester in the 2nd spot of the rotation, why isnt he an ace? He isnt your ace, the ace is #1 in the rotation, end of story. Now a team can have 5 "ace" quality players in their rotation but thats not their role if they're not in the #1 spot. And dont get me started on if they mind whether or not they're the ace. OF COURSE THEY DO! OF COURSE IT AFFECTS THEM MENTALLY! "why arent I good enough to be the ace?" "Im better than so and so! I'll prove it!" Then what happens? They psych themselves up too much and throw a bad game. Thats morale in effect, right there.

Except, where is the proof of that? There have been teams where there's several "ace level" pitchers. Heck, the White Sox have one with Sale and Quintana. Is Quintana playing horribly because he's not #1? If he is, a 4.8 WAR and a 3.5 WAR this year and a 5.1 WAR two years ago sure aren't showing it...and if he is...and playing that well...does it really matter?

Where it might matter is in contract talks, especially if "aces" get more money. So if Quintana is pondering an extension, him turning me down because he wants to be #1 starter for another team, that would make sense. Him pitching worse and striking out fewer hitters...no. Just look at Quintana in real life.

And what am I supposed to make my team worse just to fit someone in? In my carryover, I have THE ace. 99 OVR, 99 H/9, 95 K/9, 80 BB/9, throws 102 MPH with 90 Movement, highest ERA he's ever posted was 2.32 in his rookie year.

Am I really supposed to move some decent 3.80 ERA guy up to "Ace" because he "wants to be ace" over THAT pitcher above? Really? And if I say no, he's going to get pissy and pitch worse? Really???

That would be like some reliever on the Yankees getting mad because he's not displacing Rivera as closer. Please.

If you're that upset, leave. Bye. Because you ARE NOT going to be ace.

But wait, they'll happily just sign up. And for less money they wanted...at least after the fact. They are happy with the contract, sign it, and...are angry about the contract because they expect more money.

They'll change their "roles" without objection (just throw a few more $$$). And then be upset about the MONEY, not the role change. Upset at the contract they just signed.

And how many pitchers have actually, really, thrown themselves into a meltdown because they aren't #1? Seriously that being the sole factor. For a whole season...or multiple years?

Some people just dont function well away from home. They get home sick so they cant concentrate as well, they then perform worse than their potential. Some need GREAT coaches to get the best out of them, others can be their best on the worst team in the league, doesnt phase them. Some people think way too much about money, and how much they think they're worth. And it gets them off their game. They think they're being slighted or under appreciated by management. This **** all effects the mind, to varying degrees per person.

Except there's no variation to any of this. Schwarber is upset because Boston isn't near Ohio. I have guys in my carryover who signed with my Marlins...even though they perfer on the west coast....if you're that flustered over it...why sign with my team? Say, I'd prefer somewhere close to home", and that's that. I could understand THAT.

But there's just no variation. They all act the same. Why doesn't Schwarber then not care so much? Or what makes him flustered over it? Maybe he really doesn't care so much. Or he cares so much that...he'll just keep playing as if Boston is Cleveland. Why doesn't he request a trade? Why doesn't Farrell have to try to make him feel better?

And, again, where is the example of a player who performed poorly BECAUSE he wasn't playing in/near his hometown? Because that's what the game is attempting to do, lower attributes (making him play worse) because of that factor.

I think morale is the best new part of this game. I think it takes a step closer to reality where you can be a great player and just not be happy. And that unhappiness will tank your performance. And then you go to a better team and you set records like RANDY MOSS after he got traded by Oakland to NE. Its one of the realest parts of any sport game and can only get better as they further tweak and redefine things.

Except why do I have a team full of Randy Mosses? Not everyone responds the way he does.

Not everyone even in the NFL responded the way he does. Randy Moss should not be the norm for a league.

And better team? My Marlins win 100+ games year after year. Was the best team in baseball. Won WS 3 of 6 years, most in that span. Right now, my squad is the best team, should be the "better team" those "Randy Mosses" want to get to.

[Sgexpat]

Re: Player morale

I would tend to agree the ace/star concepts being tied directly to their spot in the rotation or batting order seems a bit off.

Anecdotally there have been players who express frustration at their spot in the order, though, or for example whether they get used as a closer consistently or not - so the idea is not completely wrong.

I think they could have stuck with an easier approach around everyday vs platoon where for sure there are probably any number of players who really should be platooned more often but aren't - not because a platoon partner can't be found but because the team - manager - player all value that consistency and for the player not starting as often could impact their next salary too.

If they are going to stick with batting order I would suggest they use 1-4 to at least give us one more slot. The rotation spot makes no sense really but there could be a bit of nuance around it whereby a guy is unhappy in year X+1 if he was the opening starter and gets pushed back in the rotation. Not sure how often this is really relevant so it feels like for starting pitchers this is clutching at straws a bit.

I do think the player performance and team performance aspect is legitimate.

[KBLover]

Re: Player morale

I do think the player performance and team performance aspect is legitimate.

I would like to see/find data on this because I can't.

Likewise, those players who bark about not being closer - do they simply not sign with the team going forward or do they actually perform worse solely for that reason?

As for performance - there's far too many variables, a lot of them having nothing to do with guys being "angry" for me to think that players should suddenly lose bat speed (contact/power), run slower (speed/baserunning), or somehow forget how to make precise routes (reaction/fielding) to balls.

So, barring data to show me otherwise, I remain skeptical.

Not to mention the "absoluteness" of the whole thing. No chance for interaction. All guys react the same (why don't some not get as uptight over contracts as others...not every guy is petulant or acts like Randy Moss), etc.

OOTP has morale and relationships, development connections, morale that impact signing and while it has a "team chemistry" aspect, I'm not sure what exactly it does. I've had team happily go .350, but the clubhouse was sunshine and rainbows due to strong team leadership (which also doesn't exist in The Show).

[Sgexpat]

Re: Player morale

KB you make many valid points. I do not think its provable that player morale leads to changes in performance, but surely it is self evident that when the team or player is not playing well they will (often) be "down" from a morale perspective. Teams that experience major final month collapses to lose their division or huge first half slumps anecdotally report conditions in the clubhouse deteriorating, or their own happiness to be challenged by those circumstances.

I do agree morale's interplay if any with performance is not proven so far as I know so perhaps this really should be toned down or limited to how players think about extensions vs keeping their options open. Not sure.

[mrCPUgeek]

Player morale

The thing I dislike the most about this is the salary expectations. Say you add a guy to your 40 man mid-season and he's making 70K, he now expects 500K, but you have no way to change that. IRL, they would get bumped to the MLB minimum wage.

Then you have a player making say 500-700K in his first year and does well, he now want 3-5M. One, you again have nothing you can do after the season starts. Two, they shouldn't have any salary expectations until they are arbitration eligible.

Same thing to someone under contract. They start to want more money before their contract is up, yet there is NOTHING you can do about it.

I really wish there was a way to turn the whole thing off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Moss44]

Re: Player morale

Another point that I haven't seen many people make yet is the fact that many teams don't have a definined "ace" starter. If you think about it, the only situations in which the "ace" status matters (or is visable at all) is for who starts Opening Day and who starts in the playoffs. In fact, the order of pitchers gets messed up all of the time, especially when pitchers get injured, return from an injury, or get called up

[BENVCR]

Re: Player morale

The thing I dislike the most about this is the salary expectations. Say you add a guy to your 40 man mid-season and he's making 70K, he now expects 500K, but you have no way to change that. IRL, they would get bumped to the MLB minimum wage.

Then you have a player making say 500-700K in his first year and does well, he now want 3-5M. One, you again have nothing you can do after the season starts. Two, they shouldn't have any salary expectations until they are arbitration eligible.

Same thing to someone under contract. They start to want more money before their contract is up, yet there is NOTHING you can do about it.

I really wish there was a way to turn the whole thing off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Preach! I've started signing all my prospects to 500k the year before I think they will come up; costs me a bit in salary but when it's the difference between your stud coming up, taking a -3 and hitting .220, or being a + player who goes on to hit .300, makes a difference.

If they atleast let us negotiate contracts mid-season we would be able to avoid this, and making salary expectations for renewable players is stupid. Mike trout got 500k for a season, if that was MLB 16 he Would have tossed his toys out the pram for that one.

[jada855]

Re: Player morale

I really loved the idea of adding player morale to this years Franchise. I was hoping that it would really help bring some personality to the CPU players and the overall way they played the game.

But honestly even though I watch every at bat for all 9 innings ( I use a player locked SS) I didn’t see much affect on CPU players offense or defense. I know it can be seen when you press Triangle from the roster screen and on the line up screen before games.

But maybe it might be a good idea to integrate it during actual game play so it becomes more visible (see rough screen mock up) to see how players are performing similar to the pitchers energy bar just a thought.

Would love to see continued improvements to player personality and player morale in future MLB The Shows possibly conveyed through animation.

[HustlinOwl]

Re: Player morale

Any info on this?

I just noticed this after the newest update. Now all of my starting position players are listed as "bench" in their role and all of my pitchers in my rotation are listed as "bullpen." Can someone tell me how to fix this?

[bigmike0077]

Re: Player morale

Any info on this?

i havent noticed this happen, or maybe i havent checked

is this a common problem everyone is having?