After I was finished speaking with Ryan Wangman for a recent episode of the GM’s Corner, he asked if I thought my massive collection of PPT gave me any real competitive advantage. Some others have asked similar questions—though not quite so focused on my team. I said that no, I didn’t think the advantage I got from these PPT was particularly high. Getting a free ballpark was a pretty big deal, though, and that’s a useful advantage for sustainability.
Still, the question hung in my head.
I don't think that answer is quite right. I do think I'm getting an advantage, just not exactly in the ways folks might mean.
When people ask that question, I think they’re asking about the personality side of the equation. By that, I mean most everyone can understand the basic on-field advantages of pitcher conversion and ballpark renovations (or the financial value of building parks). The use of points for cash and budget are also fairly obvious (though to me the value of buying budget is suspect in most cases—the exception being when you really need that big-ticket guy this year and you can really front-load a contract).
Managers and coaches probably make a difference, too. Though that’s a question of debate beyond even the ability to use points to improve them. Add the team doctor into that mix, too. The bottom line to that is: I don’t know. I occasionally use points to help staff, and think that the impact of good coaching is probably growing in OOTP—but again, I don’t know.
But, really, the personality side of the question is where I feel the most angst circles around. It’s unknown and uncertain, and there’s this feeling that perhaps if I just throw enough points into a player they’ll become towering stars, and that if I don’t I’m a horrible human being (okay, maybe that’s going too far, you tell me).
So, what do I think of the advantages of spending PPT on these things? If I pump up all my guys to be beefy workout warriors, will I become a behemoth of an organization? Will they all bump to 4 and 5 star guys? Is the Nine making off like a bandit by gathering up these points? Well?
As I thought about this question, I decided then to write this thing. Let me state up front that I have no idea if it’s right, or if it’s wrong. But since I’m obviously the largest practitioner of spending points in the long and glorious history of the league, I figured I’d put this out there for whatever it’s worth.
This is how I think of things. Your mileage can vary.
THOUGHTS ON THE NINE, WORK ETHIC, AND MINOR LEAGUE DEVELOPMENT
The fact is, I don’t know whether adding work ethic (or intelligence) really makes a difference to development or not, but I think the past several years of my pumping points into the Nine pretty much says that added points clearly do not create hordes of berserker 5-stars. I have a few bumpers, but so do other teams. Does YS9 have more bumpers than anyone else? No idea, but it doesn’t feel like it from my perspective.
To be unhumble here, though, I think my minors are always full of interesting prospects and that they tend to compete well despite being under-aged at most levels—so maybe the work ethic helps at least get guys’ base ratings move more rapidly than others. That could be. On the other hand, I’ve played in other leagues that don’t provide rewards for such activities, and I can say (again with limited humility) that my minor leagues tend to be productive everywhere I go.
So, maybe PPT help, but it’s hard for me to tell because I’m moderately successful building minor leagues everywhere I go. My personal belief is that this is because I draft for position as much as best athlete available, and manage my minors by hand, focusing on playing time and success (none of that auto-ask-the-manager-for-ideas crap for the Nine!).
And on the other, other hand, I know several other GMs would say the guys I think are interesting prospects are really just dogmeat. It is standard practice for me to offer players to other GMs that I’ve embedded in my major league plans only to have that other GM tell me my guy will never sniff the majors. Different strokes, right on, and Power to the People.
Maybe my minors just aren’t as good as I think they are.
LOYALTY AND GREED
Another possible value of throwing points into these categories is, of course, that players of high loyalty and low greed might sign with you more readily. This is probably true on the whole (though J.J. McQuade proves that’s not always so right). I’ve had some decent signings after hitting player’s loyalty and greed, but I wouldn’t say they’ve been eye-popping given their timing. Probably the most successful deal was Lucas McNeill’s and I had to give him a solid bonus and an opt out to get that, a set of factors that essentially negate a big chunk of what others see as a team-friendly contract.
Time will tell what happens there—but my opinion is that the ability to give that kind of contract is a luxury you get from working to get your budget up to $135M+ as much as it is about the player’s loyalty or greed.
Add on to this that I think the OOTP game itself has likely ratcheted up the player’s efforts to get to Free Agency over the versions, and you’ve probably got less of a real-world value to them then you’d like.
OTHER SIDE-EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY POINTS: THE CLUBHOUSE
One thing that struck me after my talk with Ryan, however, is that the use of points to improve work ethic (as well as intelligence, greed, and loyalty, for that matter) probably has a value in the context of clubhouse relations. Which probably then has a value regarding contract extensions and general happiness of players to play for you. No one wants to play with an unpleasant person, right?
Good leaders, of course, seem valuable—and the elusive captains seem to make things happier all around.
I have a team that tends to win these days, but I also have a group of guys who are generally pretty good in the clubhouse. Is my good chemistry because we win, or is it because I build my kids to be hard workers and sometimes improve other traits? I think the answer is probably “yes” all around.
THE FINAL ASSESSMENT (THE POINTS THEMSELVES):
I think it’s impossible that adding points to personality traits isn’t at least a small advantage in itself. I mean, the ratings are there, and more must be better than less. I would, of course, strongly suggest that GMs gather as many points as they can (as long as they’re having fun), and that they actually spend them.
I admit I’ve never understood the value of having points in the bank—with the exception of planning to use them for a new ballpark, which really shouldn’t happen too often to a team. So, yeah, the one thing I can say with full conviction about PPT is that if a point is not spent I can guarantee it has no value. [grin]
But I think the impact made by bumping personality points on the whole is relatively small. Of course, all you really need to do is get a couple guys per hundred to do something big, and you’ve got at least a reasonable on-field impact. So, what do I know? That kind of study is hard to do, and all I can do is give you my honest opinion here (which is made by how I’ve felt in leagues with no reward systems in place vs. here).
That said, I think there are two values related to spending PPT that aren’t thought of often, and that probably do make a difference in on-field performance—at least indirectly. Those two things are…
THE FINAL ASSESSMENT (FOCUS AND FUN):
The second of these—fun—is certainly a matter of personal opinion. I love spending points on my players because it can help me make them feel alive. In a way, it’s how I think of the staff of a baseball team interacting with its players, telling them that we believe in them by investing in them. Consider it texting them every day to keep their spirits up, or paying for trips and hotels so they can work with coaches we want them to work with. To the player, merely getting a bit of a team’s PPT is a statement of worth, and makes sense to that it would change them…
Your fictional mileage can vary here, but even if those points make no difference at all in reality, both creating and spending them gives me the opportunity to get into the meta game more deeply, and easily a third of my fun in this league is being in the meta-world of the BBA (let’s say a third is competing, and third is interacting with you guys, and a third is falling in this fake world I love to write about so much).
To create PPT (TN's in particular), means I get to dig deeper into players around the team. Merely thinking about these players as I'm writing about them makes me a better GM. These things stick with you, you know? Writing about my second and third tier guys gives me a chance to see what they can do rather than focus on what they can't. This is, in reality, a huge advantage. Writing about the team (creating points) makes me engage with it. Writing about the league (creating points) helps me understand the competitive environment better--it helps me see players I would want, and players I wouldn't. Blah, blah, blah.
Similarly, the act of spending these points also engages me. It makes my team feel more real, which is more fun. So I take a lot of time in front of the TV set at night thinking about who gets what, for example.
This then relates to the first of the items under this header—focus.
The pure fact is that the more time I spend digging into the guts of my team, the more likely I am to see things as they happen. The more energy I give to the Nine, the more I am likely to find Juan Arevalo (who was a great little platoon layer that was just buried in my system), and the more likely I am to be able to see that Ernesto Garza (who will be a perfectly fine little .275-.285, 1.5-2.5 WAR player for Ed for the next three-six seasons) is growing into a useful player. The more time I spend, the more likely I am to see that little 1-star prospect Dave Brake (who hasn’t bumped ratings, but is now a 2.5 star in the majors) is a major league hitter against right handed pitchers.
As I was thinking about this question last night before going to sleep, I realized that ultimately, this is probably the biggest advantage I have related to spending points. When I have 600 points to spend, it gives me great motivation to dig deep into the organization and ask who needs what. I find that great fun (so it’s symbiotic with the first F here), and I find it great value, too.
For example, I saw Ernesto Ramos, now a four-star solid prospect, growing in my organization two years ago—well before his stars started coming in (and before I gave him any PPT boosters). Did I know he was going to bump further? No. But I saw him coming a mile away, so it was no real surprise when he got big fast. Some of that is obviously me and my experience, but several of the league are just as experienced as I am—and those who aren’t may only get to be that way if they understand that it’s workable [grin]. Then again, what do I know? I admit I’m weird this way.
The bottom line to me is that I think any GM’s greatest long-term competitive advantage comes from knowing what their team has in the pipeline, and developing some feel for what their team will look like in the future.
So, do PPT spent on player personality improvements actually adjust a players’ success rates? Probably. At least a little. But the real answer is that, even after spending all these points, I really don’t know. At the end of the day, though, my real view on it is that the act of spending those points itself—the process of looking at the organization and making decisions around my plans—probably makes a bigger impact than the points themselves.
