Is it really this easy?

[Lefty]

Hey Guys...

I started a new organization a while back, starting in 1947 and I'm now about 2/3'rds of the way finished with 1951. I use finances, with the geograqphy based levels option on, meaning the bigger market teams have more money available. I used the actual team names (but not rosters) from 1947 and I chose Cincinnati, a mid market team, as my team. I use 50 man rosters with fictional players allowed.

In 1947 I finished in 4th place in the National League with a 76-78 record. Since then, however, it seems to be going way to easy for me. In 1948 I won the NL pennant with a 97-57 record and lost the World Series to the Washington Senators. In 1949, I won the National League pennant with a 107-47 record and won the World Series. In 1950 I won the NL pennant with a 103-51 record and again won the World Series. Now, I'm up to August 5th in the 1951 season. The pennant race was close heading into the All-Star break wih my Reds tied for 1st place with St. Louis. But then I reeled off a 20 game win streak before finally losing my last game and now I'm up by 10.5 games.

I like winning, but doesn't this all seem too easy? What am I doing wrong as far as not making the rest of the league more competitive when I initially set up the league? This is the 2nd time this has happened to me. My first organization began in 1969 using equal finances and fictional team names. My team won the '69 World Series and then finished last in '70. But then I won the NL pennant in '71, '72 and '73. I won the '72 World series as well. I neer played the '73 post season because I kinda got bored with the lack of competition. That's why I started the new organization. But now I fear the same thing is happening. Any ideas?

[puresimmer]

I'm interested in what your GM philosophy is? If you could outline how you are playing maybe it will point to a weakness in the AI. AI is the hardest part to code by a factor of 10, so any improvements I can make in next year's version will be great. Any feedback you have on how you play will likely help.

Shaun

[Lefty]

My GM philosophy....hmmm.  Well, I don't know what to say.  I'll try to describe my thinking during the initial draft and the subsequent rookie drafts and free agent periods.
 
During the initial draft when the league is formed I look for big names that are young (less than 28 or so).  My first pick in the '47 draft was Ralph Kiner.  Kiner has gone on to become the MVP in '48, '49 and '50.  My first pick in the '69 draft was Reggie Jackson.  Jackson was the MVP in the '69,'70 and '71 seasons.  Potential ratings are a big factor for me in this draft.
 
For the annual rookie drafts I look for familiar names that have high potential ratings.  By familiar names I mean guys that I know were solid major leaguers.  The potential ratings are my major factor here.  I look at the contact and power ratings for batters and the stuff and control ratings for pitchers, but the guy with the "name" and the high potential rating gets the nod every time.
 
For the annual free agent drafts, I draft batters by sorting on their power rating and looking for guys that have good power with high contact ratings.  Fielding ratings never enter my thoughts until after my starting lineup is complete.  Then I look for guys that are rated high in defense at positions where I may have guys that are rated low...late inning defensive replacements.  As far as pitching, I sort pitchers by Stuff rating and look for those pitchers with good stuff and high control ratings.  Velocity ratings are usually my tiebreaker for guys with similar stuff and control ratings.  I usually don't pay too much attention to the endurance rating.  During this whole process I am always looking for guys with high potential ratings as well.  I will take a guy with a decent potential rating who has slightly lower other ratings every time over a guy that has higher other ratings but a low potential rating.  I also always look for players that are versatile...the Derrell Thomas types.  Guys like that with decent ratings are invaluable.  I also look for at least one guy that has a high speed rating to be my pinch runner.
 
 
I play all of my games and sim all the rest.  I often find that I am playing against a team that is quite worn down while my team is NEVER like that.  My guys are always rested or fair.  I have had to edit the GM tendencies of the other teams to stop them from playing worn out players.  I've had to take control of a few teams to make roster changes to give them players to start that are not worn out.  A couple of times teams had 1 catcher, or 1 shortstop and the guy was completely worn out but still starting eery game.  I went in and either moved a guy up from their farm system or drafted a free agent to fix the situation.  The other teams always have more injuries than I do. I NEVER play a player when they are injured, no matter how minor the injury.  Other teams often play guys that have minor injuries which usually leads to more serious injuries.  I am also always more aggressive on the basepaths than the other teams, especially with stolen bases. 
 
I hope this helps.

[jeremy7227]

Hi Lefty - Are you using 1.70f? You mention opponent fatigue as an issue... I found fatigue to be handled MUCH better in the latest HotFix (many props to Shaun for working that in).

Also - you are using finances in a 50 man roster, mixed historical/fictional association and I have found that the computer teams are far too conservative with their money unless you play with a 60 man roster then they are about right. However I generally turn off finances because it seems too easy and too tempting to outbid the computer teams for top free agents. So I play without finances in my historically based associations where I use 35 man rosters. If the finances adjusted to the selected association roster size that might entice me to turn them back on and give it another go... because they weren't too bad even before.

I win a lot too but I am challenged. I see a couple of things that the AI doesn't do that might cause issues. One is that lousy relievers need to be relegated to mop up duty - which as a human GM you can manage through player usage settings, but I think the AI doesn't do this nor does it compensate by sticking with their starter when the top relievers aren't available... and AI seems to never go to a closer early.

Another thing is that the Manager tendencies setting isn't dynamic to the makeup of the individual roster. I don't know how one would incorporate a learned adjustment of the SUB/Int BB/Pitcher Usage/SB/Hit&Run settings but this is a cause for some of the teams playing well below their potential. I sim all of my games and if I leave the settings at the default I am usually a middle tier team... I change my Mgr tendencies about 3-5 times a season based on roster moves and generally how the team is playing. With a few adjustments to favor the speed of my players, the relative strength or weakness of my pitching staff I am able to win more effectively.

I hit and run Very Often (my SB/CS ratio is poor but my run production is high even with a weak lineup), I steal often because I have 4-5 guys currently with 75+ speed. I then individually manage the 65 and under speed players to steal less often. I set SAC BUNT to VERY RARELY as I have good contact guys who I trust to hit and run well. I have a very patient hook because my bullpen is abysmal but I have 2 future HOF'ers in my rotation at the back end of my rotation I individually set the hook to average on each player card. If the AI could do those things a couple times a season it would win more and even beat you head to head more often.

Jeremy

[Lefty]

I am using 1.70f...I have used all of the updates as they have come out.  I use 60 man rosters with equal finances in the league that started in '69.  I use 50 man rosters with geographical based finances in the league that started in '47. 

[Frozen Stiffer]

To answer the initial question, I must say: IT DEPENDS.

I have various associations that I play, probably about 6 or 7 in all, though only a few are truly responsible for the majority of my attention. Throughout these I have experienced mixed results:

• In my long, fictional association, my team is dominant; it's like the Yankees of the 90s without the bad years. I have played from 2004 until 2017 and have won the World Series all but 2 times. I have yet to experience a season with fewer than 100 wins. This association has fictional players and EVERYONE has the default stadium.
• In my 2006 Marlins association, currently in 2010, we finished 4th the first year, won the World Series the next year and made it to the World Series but lost (to Baltimore) the third year. Currently we're enjoying a 68-26 record and leading our division by 23 games. This association has real players, started in 2006, with real stadiums.
• My 1986 Avenge Buckner Association playing as the Boston Red Sox, is reported on in the Locker forum. We've had ups and downs, winning streaks and losing ones. We've been doing well lately but we are far from dominant and fighting to earn our wins. This association has real players, started in 1986, with real stadiums.
• My original National Hardball Association, where I would sim in 1 week increments, was created before I got into the GBG managing. In that association, after 8 years, we finished in 6th place the first year and it's been downhill from there. Nothing I can do can get me out of the gutter. This association has fictional players, started in 1998 and EVERYONE has the default stadium.

Examples 1 and 4 have fictional players and default stadiums but two sharply contrasting results. Examples 2 and 3 have real players and real stadiums-- yet erratic results there; one association started tough and softened up while the other started tough and has remained equally challenging. I admit I was worried when Shaun mentioned AI tweaks in older patches where the computer would arrange the lineup better and be more intelligent and selective about pitchers, when to sub, who to use as DH, etc. I was thinking that it would make challenging associations all the more difficult and the easier association more of a challenge. With all due respect, I have not seen this.

I would say that the last 3-4 years in my longer-term fictional association it has become a bit of a struggle in the first half of the year, though we seem to have pulled it off in the second half, or in the last 1/3rd of the year on one occasion. During the two years where we failed to win it all, we were eliminated in the LCS playoffs both times.