Quote:
Originally Posted by ravinhood
I'm just trying to find a way to make the AI stop making these ridiculous trades or free agency buys on crap players with bad stats. I have that box you spoke of set to 90% stats and 10% previous year but I haven't noticed a difference yet. They are paying millions to these 5.00 era pitchers and scrub outfield players with red bars. Just burns me up to see so much wasted money on crap players in this game. Players I wouldn't give you a red nickel for they are playing 20mil a year for.
|
this may be a money supply issue. take a peak at the financial report or list all mlb players and sort by yearly salary.
i have 26 players making 20m/yr or more. all are under 30million. 5 of them are objectively terrible contracts. some were crappy when they signed, and some broke down shortly after.
if that doesn't sound familiar, your league likely has too much cash on hand floating around during FA. you can limit this through settings, but you will never eliminate bad contracts.
look through a few teams and see if some are accumulating tons of "cash on hand." i would suggest limiting cash on hand to 10million or so. if you have added income to the league in any way (beyond default settings), that could also be causing a problem.
luxury tax and salary caps could in theory keep this in check. this will require some attention and years of trial and error. you would have to find a point where no team can make and retain an lot of cash on hand. a simpler fix is to merely limit cash on hand in the settings, lol.
you could put the cash on hand limit while you work on shaping yearly income to levels that provide a rational economic environment.
the financial/budget system is pretty bunk, but this isn't a financial management game, it's baseball, so i look the other way. (mba in finance).
------------------ if not....
it could also just be normal. gm's make bad decisions. look at adam dunn or any number of overpaid pitchers in real life. if the AI needs a power hitter in FA, they are going to sign something - even after they lose out or can't afford better options. if a crappy 1b is all they can get, their hand is forced. you'd have to look at the alternatives for each of those bad contracts to be confident in saying they were a bad idea. (limitiations of AI considered).
i can say with confidence that the AI makes the best decisions when you use 100% ratings and 100% scouting accuracy. it's just like someone playing craps and always betting on the best percentages. how much scouting innaccuracy makes this false? no idea, but at some point it will become false due to innacuracies.
that doesn't mean you should use 100% ratings or that it is better or worse. it probably would not eliminate bad contracts, either. i only have 36% ratings and the rest is divided between the last three years of stats. i want GM's making mistakes like real life gm's and not always making the best bet without fail.. since ratings are more predictive (normal or better accuracy for sure) using them more should result in better contract decisions, not stats. when scouting innaccuracy outweighs the volatility of yearly stats, then you can say the opposite.
i would worry less about what people think about these settings, and just try each or any degree in between and then choose the one that provides the results that you like. what it 'should' do doesn't matter at that point.
how the AI picks a lineup (saber/traditional) may affect their FA targets, too. so, fiddle with that setting and see what the effects are, too. one of them seems to cause the AI to really value power at the 2nd lineup spot. so you see 30/80 contact and 70+power guys being paid too much to bat at the top.