Stadium Reconstruction

[kimkrichbaum2]

I came up with a cool idea about how to add more strategy options, simply, to SOM, especially in a year with limited stadium options like 2007.

You have the option of spending part of your 80 million (or whatever your salary cap is) on stadium reconstruction. For each $400,000 you assign to stadium reconstruction you can lower or raise one of your ballpark ratings (BPHR-left, BPHR-right, BPS-left, or BPS-right) by one. This way you can create a 2006 Petco, or a righty or lefty slated stadium if you are willing to pay for it. The strategy options would multiply. I am not stuck on the $400,000 number. I wanted a number that would make stadium reconstruction a viable strategy, but not a dominating one.

For those of you who are purists about the game being realistic, there is precedent for this. Teams have sometimes moved there fences in, or watered their infields to create a stadium that fits their team.

What do you all think?

[geekor]

I like the idea actually, though I think it would need to be more than 400k. For instance take Shea in 07. To make it more like circa 05 shea, say pump the BP HR for L to 10, would be 2.4 mil. And I think for being able to make something very drastic give you a huge advantage. Or to turn something that is only a 3 difference for BP HR to a 6 difference would be 1.2 mil, too little for possibly a huge difference. 6-800k seems more reasonable number. You could then turn Fenway (at 600k) in a 13-13, 3-6 into a real RH power park (13-13, 3-10) for a measly 2.4 mil could make it worth it to a lot of people. Perhaps keep it cheap but put a cap on how much you could spend it antoher way.

[CHARLESBELL]

I like this idea, too. The limitation could be on how many point changes could be made to a single stat, as well as a dollar limit.

Prgoramming wise this could be a pain as the software is likely using a single table to get stadium information from. This would require a separate table for every league.

I'd guess the decision would have to be made pre-draft, say at the time of stadium selection. The cost would be deducted from the salary base so that, for example, if $5M were spent on stadium reconstruction, the max draft amount that could be spent would be $75M (in an $80M league). It would also committ the owner to that specific stadium reconstruction after the draft just like everyone else who didn't make any changes,

Would sure make things a lot more challenging and interesting.

[Jerlins]

Another yes vote here, but would want more than a $400k cost as well.

[drew6013]

It would be also neat if you could make the ballpark changes up until the season starts. Therefore, after the draft you could build your park around the squad you ended up with.

[geekor]

[quote:eae244efd7="drew6013"]It would be also neat if you could make the ballpark changes up until the season starts. Therefore, after the draft you could build your park around the squad you ended up with.[/quote:eae244efd7]

no as charlie siad it would have to be pre-draft. I wouldn't want some in shea who then suddenly right before the season starts becomes MM circa 06. I would have to be as charlie said above.

[kimkrichbaum2]

First of all, I agree with Charlie, the stadium and spending level would have to be frozen in at time of the draft.

I started looking at some scenarios to see whether the stadium expenditures would be effective at 600,000. Actually I would suggest 600,000 for BPHR changes, and 400,000 for BPS changes if possible, as the BPHR is more potent.

At that level you could:
Make ATT a 10-13 1-1 for 3 Mil
Make Cit Bank a 11-8 19-13 for 1.8 Mil
Make Comerica a 10-10 7-1 for 1.8 Mil
Make Dolphins a 10-1 10-1 for 4.2 Mil
Make Dolphins a 19-1 10-1 for 7.8 Mil
Make Dolphins a 19-1 19-1 for 13.2 Mil
Make RFK a 1-1 1-1 for 3.6 Mil
Make Rogers a 7-10 13-19 for 1.8 Mil
Make Rogers a 7-10 10-19 for for 3.6 Mil
Make Rogers a 7-10 7-19 for 5.4 Mil
Make Rogers a 7-19 7-19 for 10 Mil
Make Safeco a 2-2 9-1 for 3 Mil

After looking at this I think there should be a limit of how much any one stat can change, say 5.

Also I think these options look pretty juicy, but I also know how much we can buy for that couple of mil. What do all think would the costs have to be higher?

[CHARLESBELL]

To really look at pricing, we'd need to engage the stats experts that help TSN determine player salaries. I think there could be some comparable algorithms there that could associate a value to increasing +1 stadium BPHR (for example). It's being done to an extent already for the individual players, so it may be possible to expand that logic to a stadium impact.

Point is I think its possible to set a cost figure that would relate to its "value" and so would be balanced/neutral compared with the loss of salary to purchase players. That would be important so that owner strategy in selecting and playing a stadium configuration and the players is still the determining factor in how well the team does, and not some aberration as a result of stadium manipulation.

I hope we get some more pulling for this.

[Play By The Rules]

I don't like it. Strat has always been far too dependant on park ratings. One of the things I like about the 2007 set is that there are no extreme slanted parks, and less extreme parks in general. Of course it is easier to win with the extreme parks, I play them pretty much exclusively and suck in neutral parks. But to me, the adjustments made to this year's set make the game better.

I guess I'm the only dissenting voice...

[J-Pav]

Wow, I have really mixed emotions about this one. Having been around for a lot of years now, I know how hard it is to find a really innovative insight on the boards. This is one of them.

However, I find myself supporting my arch nemesis [b:c425a93bc8]PBTR[/b:c425a93bc8] and here's why:

1. I agree with him that we currently have the best stadium configurations we have ever had. Ironically, I at first [i:c425a93bc8]absolutely[/i:c425a93bc8] hated the maximum three BPHR spread. But it is much more realistic than the cartoonish stats created by the big slants. It's hard, but it's fair.

2. There is still enough flexibility to choose between pitchers parks, neutral parks and hitters parks with room in between to meet every taste, again without it becoming cartoonish.

3. Even though cities have in fact built stadiums to cater to certain teams' strengths, as an opposing manager you still knew what you could expect in say, U.S. Cellular. I shouldn't have to forecast what U.S. Cellular will play like the day before the season starts.

Stadiums have their own personalities, and I think SOM captures that quite well. If you want more flexibility, I guess on the draft card you could just have "STADIUM" with four blanks to fill for BPS and BPHRs and create your own personalized environment. But now we're back to mega slants and yard ball, not realistic major league baseball.

But I'll back your venture if you can tell me:

[b:c425a93bc8]A[/b:c425a93bc8]. Why HAL would pull Brandon League (not tired) after striking out one batter late in a tie game and replacing him with Jon Rauch for the next hitter (who of course promptly singled home the winning runs for my opponent).

and [b:c425a93bc8]B[/b:c425a93bc8]. How I ended up on the same side of any discussion with [b:c425a93bc8]PBTR[/b:c425a93bc8]??

:o

Kudos, though, on a great suggestion!