MLEs and Unintentional Consequences?

QuestGAV · 06-09-2006, 04:03 AM

I spent about 12 hours today messing around with the game, mostly trying to learn more about MLEs and PCMs. Other people had mentioned seeing a pattern in leagues with low MLEs, namely that the run environment is massively depressed. This appears to be largely due to the Batting Average MLE as it appears to disproportionately affect batters (which makes some sense given what we know about DIPS). However, it seems unlikely that the intention was for leagues with uniformly low MLEs to suffer from a depressed run environment. The run inflation from lowering the strikeout MLE is quite noticeable as well.

It seems like the MLE concept needs some adjusting so that it effects batters and pitchers in a league equally, otherwise setting up a league to get the results you want becomes mighty complicated.

I posted the results of the tests I ran in this thread:
Player Creation Modifiers & Major League Equivalencies

The testing was far from rigorous but I'd imagine the results would more or less hold up with larger sample size given that others have observed the same problem.

Test 1:

I simmed up to the All-Star Break with the following leagues:
FBL - All MLEs set to 1.
FBLBA - All MLEs set to 1 except BA, which is set to .2
FBLEBH - All MLEs 1 but EBH = .2
FBLHR - All MLEs 1 but HR = .2
FBLBB - MLEs = 1, BB = .2
FBLK - MLEs = 1, K = .2

2 subleagues per league, the following are the two LgEras and LgBAs:
FBL - 4.25, 4.68/.254, .273
FBLBA - 2.28,2.53/.168, .190
FBLEBH - 3.91,4.02/.259,.262
FBLHR - 4.23, 4.25/.273, .276
FBLBB - 4.47, 4.13/.265, .264
FBLK - 8.05,8.90/.377,.388

Test 2:
I simmed a full year with 7 leagues. All MLEs were set to either 2, 1.5, 1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, or 0.2. LgERAs and LgAvgs for the leagues:

2.0 - 4.68, 4.45/ .284, .277
1.5 - 4.89, 5.05/.277, .286
1.0 - 5.84, 5.09/.313, .288
0.8 - 4.90, 4.96/.290,.283
0.6 - 4.03, 3.92/.252,.249
0.4 - 2.12, 1.92/.177,.169
0.2 - 4.68, 3.80/.277,.258

QuestGAV · 06-09-2006, 04:22 AM

Taking a closer look at the 0.2 league from Test 2 it looks like the top tier of players have noticeably higher ratings than the players from the 0.4-0.8 leagues. It looks like most of these players were released from one of the higher leagues or were FAs to start with. That might explain at least partially why the 0.2 league was out of line.

What mechanism should we be using to keep the lower MLE leagues from buying up talent that they shouldn't really have a shot at?

old timer · 06-09-2006, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

What mechanism should we be using to keep the lower MLE leagues from buying up talent that they shouldn't really have a shot at?

These may not be what you're looking for, but just in case...

You could go to the league setup and uncheck the box for allowing free agents from other leagues to be signed. Kind of extreme, but it doesn't seem there is much else you can do.

Of course, if one of the lower MLE leagues is of a different nationality than the higher MLE leagues, you could limit the foreign player percentage.

Actually, it might be nice to have a "foreign league" percentage too. Perhaps a team could only have a certain number of players on its active roster that originated from a foreign league. Not sure if that would be possible or even a good idea. Just thought I'd put it out there.

QuestGAV · 06-09-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old timer

These may not be what you're looking for, but just in case...

You could go to the league setup and uncheck the box for allowing free agents from other leagues to be signed. Kind of extreme, but it doesn't seem there is much else you can do.

Of course, if one of the lower MLE leagues is of a different nationality than the higher MLE leagues, you could limit the foreign player percentage.

Actually, it might be nice to have a "foreign league" percentage too. Perhaps a team could only have a certain number of players on its active roster that originated from a foreign league. Not sure if that would be possible or even a good idea. Just thought I'd put it out there.

I may try that. I may also have to massively reduce the cash flow of those leagues by editing their attendance, media revenue, and cash maxes. The problem is that there's not nearly as much room to work with if your league already has a financial coefficient of 0.002.

battists · 06-16-2006, 05:13 PM

QuestGAV, I logged this as TT # 1882, just FYI.- Feature Still under Review.

06-09-2006, 04:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
QuestGAV Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,008	MLEs and Unintentional Consequences? I spent about 12 hours today messing around with the game, mostly trying to learn more about MLEs and PCMs. Other people had mentioned seeing a pattern in leagues with low MLEs, namely that the run environment is massively depressed. This appears to be largely due to the Batting Average MLE as it appears to disproportionately affect batters (which makes some sense given what we know about DIPS). However, it seems unlikely that the intention was for leagues with uniformly low MLEs to suffer from a depressed run environment. The run inflation from lowering the strikeout MLE is quite noticeable as well. It seems like the MLE concept needs some adjusting so that it effects batters and pitchers in a league equally, otherwise setting up a league to get the results you want becomes mighty complicated. I posted the results of the tests I ran in this thread: Player Creation Modifiers & Major League Equivalencies The testing was far from rigorous but I'd imagine the results would more or less hold up with larger sample size given that others have observed the same problem. Test 1: I simmed up to the All-Star Break with the following leagues: FBL - All MLEs set to 1. FBLBA - All MLEs set to 1 except BA, which is set to .2 FBLEBH - All MLEs 1 but EBH = .2 FBLHR - All MLEs 1 but HR = .2 FBLBB - MLEs = 1, BB = .2 FBLK - MLEs = 1, K = .2 2 subleagues per league, the following are the two LgEras and LgBAs: FBL - 4.25, 4.68/.254, .273 FBLBA - 2.28,2.53/.168, .190 FBLEBH - 3.91,4.02/.259,.262 FBLHR - 4.23, 4.25/.273, .276 FBLBB - 4.47, 4.13/.265, .264 FBLK - 8.05,8.90/.377,.388 Test 2: I simmed a full year with 7 leagues. All MLEs were set to either 2, 1.5, 1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, or 0.2. LgERAs and LgAvgs for the leagues: 2.0 - 4.68, 4.45/ .284, .277 1.5 - 4.89, 5.05/.277, .286 1.0 - 5.84, 5.09/.313, .288 0.8 - 4.90, 4.96/.290,.283 0.6 - 4.03, 3.92/.252,.249 0.4 - 2.12, 1.92/.177,.169 0.2 - 4.68, 3.80/.277,.258

06-16-2006, 05:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
battists OOTP Developments Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 17,024 Blog Entries: 7 Thanked 703x in 194 posts	QuestGAV, I logged this as TT # 1882, just FYI.- Feature Still under Review. Last edited by TC Dale; 07-04-2006 at 02:34 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-09-2006, 04:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
QuestGAV Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,008	Taking a closer look at the 0.2 league from Test 2 it looks like the top tier of players have noticeably higher ratings than the players from the 0.4-0.8 leagues. It looks like most of these players were released from one of the higher leagues or were FAs to start with. That might explain at least partially why the 0.2 league was out of line. What mechanism should we be using to keep the lower MLE leagues from buying up talent that they shouldn't really have a shot at?