League Checks

This topic contains 25 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Seoul KOR 4 years, 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #5101
     Erie VEN 
    Spectator

    Hi,

    Is anyone interested in helping out with league checks? The things we need to check are DL (can’t leave a guy on the DL after he’s healthy), Affiliates (can’t have more than 130 players in entire organization), Contracts (years must be even salary, each bonus can’t exceed 10% of yearly salary), and Payroll (can’t exceed 90 million).

    I’ve been doing the DL and Affiliates checks for the past 5 seasons or so. In the past, we had multiple people help out with this and split up the leagues among the volunteers. For the past 2 seasons, though, I’ve been doing all 7 leagues by myself. I can continue doing this if need be, but I don’t want to do all league check types for all 7 leagues.

    If you’re interested in helping out, you can reply here or send me a PM.

    Thanks,
    Joe

  • #30539
     Bocas del Toro VEN 
    Spectator

    @Erie (VEN) wrote:

    Hi,

    Is anyone interested in helping out with league checks? The things we need to check are DL (can’t leave a guy on the DL after he’s healthy), Affiliates (can’t have more than 130 players in entire organization), Contracts (years must be even salary, each bonus can’t exceed 10% of yearly salary), and Payroll (can’t exceed 90 million).

    I’ve been doing the DL and Affiliates checks for the past 5 seasons or so. In the past, we had multiple people help out with this and split up the leagues among the volunteers. For the past 2 seasons, though, I’ve been doing all 7 leagues by myself. I can continue doing this if need be, but I don’t want to do all league check types for all 7 leagues.

    If you’re interested in helping out, you can reply here or send me a PM.

    Thanks,
    Joe

    What’s the benefit to the league to some these checks? It just seems like a lot of work for not much benefit, at least from what I can see.

    We have limits to the roster in each league, so these hard limits make it so we can’t go over a certain amount of players in our system anyways. Isn’t this check then pointless?

    If someone has a player on the DL after he’s available to come off, that only hurts him, so what’s the problem?

    The only real check I think we should be doing is contracts, as there are often illegal contract offers.

  • #30540
     Mexico City DOM 
    Spectator

    Some checks are practical – the sim won’t run if guys are left on the DL, DFA, etc and have to be moved. It would be unfair to the simmer – much less a super pain, to leave moving players to his discretion; plus a potential conflict of interest.

    Others, such as contracts, are there to maintain the integrity of the game/league, as OOTP does a poor job managing some financial stuff – for instance, our house rules dictate that all years in a contract be equal. In another league I’m in, you can offer unequal years, but contracts always have to increase each year if not – including extensions (as opposed to our league, where you can offer lower extensions). Someone has to check these things.

  • #30541
     Erie VEN 
    Spectator

    David (Chihuahua) created this site League Checks to monitor these rules automatically. He is a magician, as far as I’m concerned.

    As for why these things should be monitored:

    DL rule: You can look at keeping a healthy player on your DL as only “hurting” your own team, but conversely, maybe the guy is out of options, isn’t good enough to keep on your ML roster, and won’t accept a demotion. Keeping him on the DL allows you to keep him on your team when he would be put on waivers in real life. There are some scenarios where it’s detrimental to your team to keep a player on the DL and others where it’s advantageous.

    Affiliates rule: Yes, there are roster limits in the minors, but the limit doesn’t apply to players on the DL. Conceivably, you could look at your roster sizes and be under the max for each level, but still over the organization max when you don’t account for players on the DL. The name of the rule should probably be changed to “Organization Size” rather than “Affiliate Roster” since we tweaked the definition of the rule a few seasons ago.

    Payroll: This wasn’t brought up, but it obviously should be enforced since we have a salary cap. If teams are allowed to operate above the salary cap, they would have an advantage.

    Contracts: Yes, this is the hardest to monitor, but since David has essentially automated everything else, it shouldn’t be too difficult for me to manually look through for illegal contracts. It may not get done every sim, but they’ll be caught within a couple sims if I don’t get to check right away.

  • #30542
     Bocas del Toro VEN 
    Spectator

    Yep, I don’t mean to say this work isn’t valuable…I’m just lazy and like to automate or keep things simple. I just see the emails about the DL Notification and generally feel sorry for all the work done by Joe since it seems like in my case anyways, at worst a guy is on DL for an extra sim cause I got busy one night and didn’t export.

    I don’t really understand the contract stuff either. Personally, if I want to offer a guy a contract for 3 years at $30M, I think I should be able to offer him $15M/10M/5M if I figure I’m going to have extra cash the first year, or 5M in the first year if I’m running tight on room now. Is there a reason I’m not aware of for why we do this?

    I’m just thinking the simpler we keep things, the better…both for the simmer, the “rule-check” guy and the owners, especially the new ones. I know I’ve had key free agents that I signed have their contracts voided because I left a bonus that he had asked for too high…my mistake, I know, but it can be quite frustrating.

    As for the Salary Cap, I find it strange that OOTP will let you go over the cap if it’s set at 90M…if it’s not forcing it, that’s definitely something we should monitor and enforce strongly.

  • #30544
     Chihuahua USA 
    Spectator

    I think arbitration is a common cause of how a team could go over the cap. Lagunillas is over $16M over the cap, perhaps due to many key players entering arbitration:

    SP Pedro Cubio received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $1,875,000.
    MR Chris Kerfoot received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $550,000.
    SP Navarro Allende received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $14,750,000.
    C Il-young Yi received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $550,000.
    SP Marcel LaFrance received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $8,750,000.
    3B Sergio Alers received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $11,250,000.
    2B Fabien Boucher received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $850,000.
    CF Kien-lung Leong received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $550,000.
    LF Tae-hyang Kim received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $9,000,000.
    MR Keisuke Hayakawa received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $550,000.
    SP Kwang-ho Pak received a 1-year contract through arbitration worth a total of $738,500.

    I agree that the bonus violations are annoying. I’ve made it a habit of removing incentives from all contracts just so that there’s no chance it gets nullified. I’ve definitely been burned by losing a player because his default bonuses during negotiations were illegal.

  • #30546
     Barquisimeto CAN 
    Spectator

    I agree that uneven contracts should be a consideration, but ONLY front loaded. The reason we should never allow backloaded contracts is an owner might take advantage of this and then leave the mess to someone else to clean up. If contracts are uneven, the first year must be equal to or more than the next season and so on.

    As for salary cap, it’s enforced only in season. There are some automated processes that would cause problems if the salary cap was a hard cap. Arbitration and Spring Training cause player salaries to change.

    @Bocas del Toro (DOM) wrote:

    Yep, I don’t mean to say this work isn’t valuable…I’m just lazy and like to automate or keep things simple. I just see the emails about the DL Notification and generally feel sorry for all the work done by Joe since it seems like in my case anyways, at worst a guy is on DL for an extra sim cause I got busy one night and didn’t export.

    I don’t really understand the contract stuff either. Personally, if I want to offer a guy a contract for 3 years at $30M, I think I should be able to offer him $15M/10M/5M if I figure I’m going to have extra cash the first year, or 5M in the first year if I’m running tight on room now. Is there a reason I’m not aware of for why we do this?

    I’m just thinking the simpler we keep things, the better…both for the simmer, the “rule-check” guy and the owners, especially the new ones. I know I’ve had key free agents that I signed have their contracts voided because I left a bonus that he had asked for too high…my mistake, I know, but it can be quite frustrating.

    As for the Salary Cap, I find it strange that OOTP will let you go over the cap if it’s set at 90M…if it’s not forcing it, that’s definitely something we should monitor and enforce strongly.

  • #30547
     Mexico City DOM 
    Spectator

    That site is Awesome David! That’s a Two Thumbs Up!!

    As for contracts, I think having the option to have variable amounts should be allowed – it adds realism and strategy, but if there is a concern about excessive backloading, then perhaps we need a rule for that, instead, if we want to protect ‘future GMs’ (or current GMs from themselves, as well). I know the game won’t allow some extreme cases, but then it often comes up with extreme cases on it’s own. Say all years can not be more than 10% greater than the previous year (within one contract).

  • #30549
     Hong Kong CUB 
    Spectator

    @Mexico City (VEN) wrote:

    That site is Awesome David! That’s a Two Thumbs Up!!

    As for contracts, I think having the option to have variable amounts should be allowed – it adds realism and strategy, but if there is a concern about excessive backloading, then perhaps we need a rule for that, instead, if we want to protect ‘future GMs’ (or current GMs from themselves, as well). I know the game won’t allow some extreme cases, but then it often comes up with extreme cases on it’s own. Say all years can not be more than 10% greater than the previous year (within one contract).

    I actually like your idea more than the current rules, from a gameplay perspective.

    But from a rule checking perspective, we need to set rules that can be eyeballed, without a calculator. 10% sounds as easy as it gets to assess quickly, but even that can be a bit time consuming. Consider a contract like this:

    $1,785,000
    $1,963,000
    $2,178,000
    $2,395,000

    That contract probably looks fine at first glance, but in fact the third year would violate your rule (10.9% increase). The rule checker is very likely to overlook this unless he’s got a calculator and is manually checking every year of the contract. Then, if the rule violation is missed, we’d have other GMs complaining that the rules aren’t being enforced, which sows discontent, and so on.

    So, equal contracts per year takes out all the calculation and guesswork, making it easier for everyone to assess and adhere to.

  • #30550
     Erie VEN 
    Spectator

    @Hong Kong (KOR) wrote:

    But from a rule checking perspective, we need to set rules that can be eyeballed, without a calculator. 10% sounds as easy as it gets to assess quickly, but even that can be a bit time consuming. Consider a contract like this:

    $1,785,000
    $1,963,000
    $2,178,000
    $2,395,000

    That contract probably looks fine at first glance, but in fact the third year would violate your rule (10.9% increase). The rule checker is very likely to overlook this unless he’s got a calculator and is manually checking every year of the contract. Then, if the rule violation is missed, we’d have other GMs complaining that the rules aren’t being enforced, which sows discontent, and so on.

    So, equal contracts per year takes out all the calculation and guesswork, making it easier for everyone to assess and adhere to.

    Would it be possible to dump player contracts automatically into a code that was set to divide each year by the previous year? Thus if the code ever came up with a value greater than 1.1, the contract would be illegal (by this 10% suggestion).

  • #30551
     Hong Kong CUB 
    Spectator

    @Erie (VEN) wrote:

    Would it be possible to dump player contracts automatically into a code that was set to divide each year by the previous year? Thus if the code ever came up with a value greater than 1.1, the contract would be illegal (by this 10% suggestion).

    It is possible, but it’s a matter of creating code that does this, which takes effort and time.

    If we did do something like that, though, we could go further and add code which instructs the simmer to mete out penalties that are appropriate to the violation.

    Consider what Warren said above…if you have a whole contract voided simply because you have an incentive that’s out of bounds, or something else minor (that’s even happened to me, and I wrote the rule!). A lot of time the GM isn’t really intending to gain an anticompetitive advantage; they simply overlooked it. Our only punishment now is: release the player, which means they won’t negotiate with the team any more. That’s a really harsh punishment for something that is an honest mistake.

    If we do get to a place where we have code assessing contracts for us, then we could even do something like this:

    1.2x increase: $500k fine
    1.3x increase: $1m fine
    1.4x increase: $1.5m fine
    …etc.
    2.0x+ increase: contract voided, player released.

    In this way, the penalties could more appropriately reflect the actual importance of the transgression.

    But, as I said, this will take some planning and effort, and we might or might not ever get to that point.

  • #30552
     Tijuana VEN 
    Spectator

    I like that Marc!!

  • #30553
     Erie VEN 
    Spectator

    I’m just looking at it from the standpoint of someone who basically doesn’t know anything about coding. I have no idea how to write my own, or how long it takes to make. I was just wondering based on how quickly David whipped up the other violations page.

    So far, this sounds like more work, but I don’t have a gauge for how much more work it would be.

    I don’t mind checking these on my own for now (or “for the foreseeable future” if the coding doesn’t happen soon/ever for this).

  • #30554
     Barquisimeto CAN 
    Spectator

    I understand contracts being backloaded being a problem, and not sure 10% really makes a huge difference to budgets anyways. What about allowing teams to front load, no limits. As long as each year is higher or equal in salary? Would allow teams to utilize freed up cap space and be easy to eyeball.

    Overall I’m not a fan of backloading at all in a league like this. Causes problems for potential new owners.

  • #30555
     Bocas del Toro VEN 
    Spectator

    While I see what you guys are saying about backloaded contracts, what fun would it really be to join a league, sign a bunch of studs to really backloaded deals and then just walk away after you win, if you’re even lucky enough to do that. Personally I think the main fun of OOTP is to grow your own team in a great league, like this one, where there are a lot of great owners. I’ve been in a league of 20 teams where there were 2 or 3 dedicated owners including me, it just wasn’t fun to win when you had such an easy time of it.

    If it got to the point where a guy quit with a ton of terrible contracts back loaded and it was tough finding an owner, we could always give the guy a free contract dump or two to entice him.

  • #30556
     Barquisimeto CAN 
    Spectator

    @Bocas del Toro (DOM) wrote:

    While I see what you guys are saying about backloaded contracts, what fun would it really be to join a league, sign a bunch of studs to really backloaded deals and then just walk away after you win, if you’re even lucky enough to do that. Personally I think the main fun of OOTP is to grow your own team in a great league, like this one, where there are a lot of great owners. I’ve been in a league of 20 teams where there were 2 or 3 dedicated owners including me, it just wasn’t fun to win when you had such an easy time of it.

    If it got to the point where a guy quit with a ton of terrible contracts back loaded and it was tough finding an owner, we could always give the guy a free contract dump or two to entice him.

    I’m not worried about the guy who wins as he would likely stick around. It’s the team that doesn’t win and then is stuck with a bunch of restrictive contracts. And I don’t think we should be getting into forgiving team’s contracts since we’ve made a point of not doing so in the past.

  • #30559
     Bocas del Toro VEN 
    Spectator

    I’m just saying there are benefits to the Rule Checkers and long term owners to have any allowable contract, and the only downfall is to people who would self-sabotage their team with bad contracts. That happens today even with injuries, rating hits or just people making long contract offers that don’t work well. Look at Fireball/Fireman Yi…I forget his name. He was a stud, signed a long term contract and then his contract became a huge albatross after a huge ratings hit.

    Protecting owners from themselves doesn’t seem worth it to me…coming from a guy who’s had a few terrible contracts in his time πŸ™‚

  • #30561
     Hong Kong CUB 
    Spectator

    @Bocas del Toro (DOM) wrote:

    Protecting owners from themselves doesn’t seem worth it to me…coming from a guy who’s had a few terrible contracts in his time πŸ™‚

    Actually we’re not trying to protect the owners with any of these rules. Go ahead and spend all your money if you want. πŸ™‚

    What we’re trying to protect with extremely backloaded contracts is the franchises. There is a lot of turnover in the league…very often people come in, play for a season, and then go AWOL. So people could sign a bunch of ridiculous “time bomb” contracts in order to win a championship, when they have no intention of continuing on, and that leaves the next GM inheriting a steaming pile.

  • #30562
     Barquisimeto CAN 
    Spectator

    This is why I’m against backloaded contracts altogether. It’s not good for the teams when an owner signs a bunch of backloaded deals and then quits the league. It’s not fair to the game then if we have to release those players to make those franchises appealing for new owners.

    On the other hand, let’s allow the option to front load so you can bid on players when you have budget room to make things work longterm.

  • #30565
     Tijuana VEN 
    Spectator

    I think there is room here for both the front loading and perhaps a modest level of back loading if the logistics of monitoring the latter is feasible, along with fines of increasing severity if the agreed threshold is violated.

    An existing GM may be willing to take on the financial risks (akin to a luxury tax) for a serious run that back loading can provide.

    It would also be possible for a new GM to be allowed the option to have a backloaded contract nullified and the player placed into the free agent pool as a condition to taking over a franchise. Not saying that all backloaded contracts be eligible for this, but only those that are fineable (similar to conditions that Marc outlined above).

    That way if someone sees a need and is willing to accept a finable back loaded contract and then needs to leave the league, an incoming GM would have the option to accept the fineable contract as is or say “I would be willing to take on this team if that contract is revoked”.

    Looking at this from a non-nefarious GM point of view. I don’t know enough of WBH history to know why most GMs leave, but I find it hard to believe that rampant ” I’ll screw the WBH” or “I’ll screw the next GM” is a leading reason. I think, from what I have seen life gets in the way and most quietly disappear or voice a regretful departure. Hence, I tend to believe in a “give the GM the benefit of the doubt” for signing backloaded contracts, but give a new GM the option to have fineable contracts revoked as a condition to take on a franchise.

  • #30566
     Barquisimeto CAN 
    Spectator

    While I know all the best intentions are out there things go wrong. The problem with allowing new GMs to cut a bad contract or two is that there isn’t repercussions on the team who signed the contract and it wouldn’t be fair to the GMs bidding against him on the players.

    For a team to backload contracts and walk away, they’re playing with free money and it opens up the possibility of something being taken advantage of. The option to allow a new owner to cut contract(s) takes away and consideration for it. It only takes 1 crazy owner who doesn’t care about the longterm to throw the league out of balance.

  • #30578
     Seoul KOR 
    Spectator

    I am all for simplicity and ease of the people running the league.

    Equal salary in every year of a contract is simple and easy to check. It is also very good to prevent back loading of contracts.

    I don’t know if there are a whole bunch of owners (certainly there could be some) who would intentionally or maliciously back load contracts, with the plan to leave the mess to some other owner after they leave the league.

    I think there are plenty who might back load contracts intending to suffer the future consequences. Maybe it is their first online league and they don’t realize how debilitating such things can be. Or they really want to try to catch players they can’t afford right now. But then after the contract is already locked into place, leave the league for whatever reason. This just isn’t right to new owners. And forgiving or cancelling contracts is not fair to those who have been in the league and plan to stay for the long term (they might have had a chance to sign those players themselves).

    I’m all for continuing the rule of equal salary in every year of a contract. A 10% back loading allowance or a front loading allowance really doesn’t give all that much more bargaining leverage. Not enough to warrant complicated coding or number checking.

  • #30579
     Seoul KOR 
    Spectator

    I am glad the checks for Organization Size are somewhat automated. I still feel bad about somebody needing to send out emails and even run the automated checks. It just doesn’t seem worth the trouble to me. The current minor and major league limits give 130 players in the organization.

    The only additional players beyond this organization size are players on DL and DFA.

    DFA takes care of itself. Players left on DFA are fineable offenses. That should stay in place.

    Maybe we could have a similar rule about players remaining on DL who are eligible to return to play (DL time finished and injury healed). This would be a check similar to the DFA check. Most of the other leagues I’ve been in had a rule about leaving healed players on DL.

    Beyond those considerations, I see no great harm in each team having the possibility of carrying 132 or 135 players for DL and DFA. It is not an unfair advantage because every team has the same rule. Is it really worth the trouble of sending out the emails?

    It’s also even a slight pain for owners to add up all the players in the organization to determine whether or not the organization size is too large. It would be so much easier to just glance to see that my minor league affiliates are within the roster limits.

  • #30581
     Taegu JPN 
    Spectator

    It’s also even a slight pain for owners to add up all the players in the organization to determine whether or not the organization size is too large. It would be so much easier to just glance to see that my minor league affiliates are within the roster limits.

    you can already do this.

    from your Team menu click on Players (between Home and Players & Transactions)
    just below that, be sure Overview is selected
    just below that, select All Players in Organization

    on the far right hand of the screen, you will see a total number of players

    I am glad the checks for Organization Size are somewhat automated. I still feel bad about somebody needing to send out emails and even run the automated checks. It just doesn’t seem worth the trouble to me. The current minor and major league limits give 130 players in the organization.

    The only additional players beyond this organization size are players on DL and DFA.

    DFA takes care of itself. Players left on DFA are fineable offenses. That should stay in place.

    Maybe we could have a similar rule about players remaining on DL who are eligible to return to play (DL time finished and injury healed). This would be a check similar to the DFA check. Most of the other leagues I’ve been in had a rule about leaving healed players on DL.

    Beyond those considerations, I see no great harm in each team having the possibility of carrying 132 or 135 players for DL and DFA. It is not an unfair advantage because every team has the same rule. Is it really worth the trouble of sending out the emails?

    having a single number is the easiest approach. (not 130 + whatever for DL/DFA). we used to have a 125 player limit, but decided to bump up this number in part to account for injured players. we have to draw a line somewhere. i don’t see our current number changing unless some compelling evidence is presented that shows 130 is somehow detrimental to the league.

    add, allowing teams to have a large or unlimited number of players in their organization only encourages hoarding. to a degree, allowing 130 players helps competitive balance, however small of an effect that might be. especially since we did away with Rule 5 draft. and no, i don’t see that being brought back either. it’s a pain with the way our league is set up (7 individual leagues). don’t quote me, but i think instituting the organization limit was a compromise for dropping the Rule 5.

  • #30592
     Hong Kong CUB 
    Spectator

    I had hoped to automate the “players in organization” rule by instituting the per-team roster limit for minor leagues. But then, the game doesn’t seem to police that at all, treating it more like a suggestion. It does police the 25-man ML limit, but the minor league team limits seem to have no effect.

    That’s the only reason it went from 125 to 130.

    So, oh well…tried to eliminate this rule checking, but the game isn’t helpful in this regard.

  • #30596
     Seoul KOR 
    Spectator

    @Taegu (VEN) wrote:

    you can already do this.

    Thanks Ben! I use that screen all the time. Just never thought to check number of players there.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

JOIN US

If you would like to join, send us a message with a little bit about you and your OOTP history.

Sending

Β©2019Β World Baseball Hierarchy

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Skip to toolbar