|
Post by canadasfinest on Mar 3, 2017 23:45:03 GMT
I think we need to have a discussion on how to handle this as I find that I am now having to manage this with more scrutiny than my depth chart and it is a bit ridiculous. On my teams I have 2 different examples of the flaw of this:
1. Lakers - I did not track this over the season but at somepoint it hit the fan. This is on a winning team making 2 consecutive finals appearances with little roster turnover, makes no sense. Perhaps all my old guys are just grumpy and causing problems. This negates me from trading/signing anyone who I would want to keep beyond the season because they will just instantly become unhappy.
2. Heat - As part of my trade with the Hawks we added Morlon Wiley a 3rd string PG. I caught this one early and dumped him after a few games, unfortunately we have to eat a year of his contract. However, I feel it is worth it because I did not want Tim Hardaway to become angry and then suck the whole team in with him. I signed Darnell Valentine in his place and sure enough after 15 or so games (he actually was somehow playing for a few) he is now going south. So now I will be cutting him and replacing him with another 3rd string point guard. I predict having to do this one more time prior to the playoffs beginning.
Curious what the rest of the leagues thoughts are on this. The nice part of the PA system was this stuff was pretty much ignored because the facts of each team dictated (unless you were unhappy on a crappy team). With the change to the in-game (which I do support) now we have this hole, which kinda takes the fun out of it.
Edit: I am just now seeing Atlanta signed Wiley so does that mean I do not have to take on the 2nd year of his contract?
|
|
|
Post by ranger74 on Mar 4, 2017 0:33:16 GMT
For the Lakers, I think that's possibly a result of too many below average personalities. You have a couple of jerks in Scott Williams and David Wesley and Doc Rivers and Walter Davis aren't the best locker room guys either. I don't mind this as I think it's pretty realistic for the chemistry to go south with some toxic guys in there. Davis and Rivers have probably been slowly pissing everyone off for years to the point where everyone's considering what life might be like playing elsewhere. A few years ago, Philly had a similar thing where they were playing okay (not LA level, but playoff bound) and most of the team were demanding a trade. I cut the worst personalities from the bench and replaced them with high personality players and the chemistry fixed itself over the course of the season. Lakers might be too far gone, but worth trying that. Bad chemistry doesn't seem to effect performance, just re-signing FAs, so I think it adds an interesting facet to the game.
The Heat thing might just come down to those PGs "playing time" rating being too high for the role. That does bug me that a lot of scrubs expect big minutes or they'll bitch. It just means you might be better off signing a lesser player who will be happy with his DNPs and 5 minute games.
|
|
|
Post by Aeon on Mar 5, 2017 3:12:36 GMT
I saw in the league notes that I am 2nd worst in the league with happiness right now. Can anyone give me a quick assessment who are the culprits in the Nets locker room? It certainly matters now--cost us Kemp and could cost us again this offseason it seems.
|
|
|
Post by mgtr81 on Mar 5, 2017 11:19:40 GMT
We're open to any ideas you have on this.
As for Atlanta, we moved all the unhappy players this offseason, but Davis who was 4 bars out of 10 and Barkley who was 0/10. After half season, Barkley is now 4/10 and improving, while Davis has not changed (he wants to play and is not playing). Green, who was happy when he came from Miami, is now 0/10. He also wants to play and has barely played since December. So i think it makes sense.
Regarding the Wiley contract, I believe that once you cut player, the engine keeps that waived salary against your cap until the end of the original contract, regardless of him signing elsewhere later on.
As for the Nets ... everyone is unhappy. Your lowest personality players are Pressey, Perry, Oakley and Polynice.
I will release some data later on.
|
|
|
Post by Aeon on Mar 5, 2017 21:25:24 GMT
Thanks, that's good to know. none of those are key pieces, so I should have been moving them.
|
|
|
Post by saspurs on Mar 5, 2017 22:13:11 GMT
Thanks, that's good to know. none of those are key pieces, so I should have been moving them. Im my opinion I think it is: Pressey#1 Oakley#2 Plynice/Perry#3 Guys that having Playtime time higher then their personality I think will always turn sour when not seeing the court. Pressey has been a thorn almost everywhere he's been, unless he was starting and getting minutes. Oakley, Perry and Polynice PT is up very high...with Personality under 50%. Not a good combo when on the pines Olden was not happy in San Antonio when he was backing up Sampson. Many might not like this...but I actually don't mind chemistry coming into play. Shaq/Kobe might've won a few more titles...but they could not live on same court. Harden had to leave OKC because mngmnt knew he was a star in the making and wouldn't sit to being a bench player anymore. Durant and Westbrook....Durant finally had enough even though OKC was a contender every year. I think for personality players...you need to almost find a way to lock in the 'core' if it includes a player of this type...for several years...so unhappiness is not a yearly issues to lose key players from that aspect. Kings are a calamity for chemistry....but have two-three years to sort it out before Shaq up for contract. my two cents ljw SAS
|
|
|
Post by ranger74 on Mar 6, 2017 1:25:42 GMT
Many might not like this...but I actually don't mind chemistry coming into play. Shaq/Kobe might've won a few more titles...but they could not live on same court. Harden had to leave OKC because mngmnt knew he was a star in the making and wouldn't sit to being a bench player anymore. Durant and Westbrook....Durant finally had enough even though OKC was a contender every year.
I think for personality players...you need to almost find a way to lock in the 'core' if it includes a player of this type...for several years...so unhappiness is not a yearly issues to lose key players from that aspect. Kings are a calamity for chemistry....but have two-three years to sort it out before Shaq up for contract. I'm with you. It can be frustrating, but the frustration lies with the players for my part, not with the game. Managing multi-million dollar egos would have to be tricky business and I think the player happiness factor adds an element of that. It's just another thing to look for, particularly when putting together your bench. Will this guy get along with his teammates? Will he be satisfied as a backup or 3rd stringer? Is he going to become unhappy if we're losing a lot? Without this sort of thing, the game can sometimes seem like it's too much about numbers and ratings, so it definitely adds something worthwhile to the experience IMO.
|
|
|
Post by grunter on Mar 6, 2017 14:19:34 GMT
Speaking about being "Unhappy" the whole Knicks organisation is furious after NOT getting a single representative at the All Star Weekend.
But as a first season GM I think the unhappiness and personality factors are great. Many great teams have been torn apart by one disruptive personality. Really adds to the process of building a team thinking about more then basic stats.
|
|
|
Post by mgtr81 on Mar 6, 2017 22:21:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by canadasfinest on Mar 12, 2017 16:53:51 GMT
I get what you are saying and I can kind of somewhat understand the Lakers situation. But the street free agent who is sitting on his couch collecting unemployment and now is getting a 6 figure contract should not be unhappy at all it makes zero sense and to have it derail a team in any capacity.
Appreciate the clarification on Wiley.
|
|
|
Post by mgtr81 on Mar 12, 2017 21:32:08 GMT
We can tweak the model if needed by editing players attitudes at the end of the season. But it has to be something that makes sense and is in agreement with players personalities and preferences.
|
|
|
Post by ranger74 on Mar 15, 2017 0:29:26 GMT
For anyone interested, there's a happiness/personality experiment happening with the Sixers at the moment. They had three players demanding trades (Danny Manning, Terry Davis and Ed Stokes) and two more at around 50% happiness (Sean Rooks and Rod Strickland) despite having a successful season so far. I kept only Manning and Strickland from the unhappy group, sending Davis, Stokes and Rooks to Detroit for JBC and his above average personality. I also signed the likable Harvey Grant, Mario Elie and Robert Pack.
Strickland is already back to normal happiness and Manning is now starting his move away from trade demands. He's still very low but there's been noticeable improvement and I'm pretty confident he'll be fine by the start of next season.
So player happiness is definitely manageable. This is the 2nd time Philly has transformed their locker room chemistry like this in recent seasons.
|
|
|
Post by canadasfinest on Mar 16, 2017 22:48:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cleasby on Mar 19, 2017 19:44:46 GMT
Been following this thread and now have time to put together a reply. I think the issue is not happiness across the board but the issue is that:
1. Ageing players do not adjust their playing time demands which makes them unhappy. I get some players will be like a real life Kobe and demand to play the whole game even if they are terrible but more of the older players should reduce their playing time demands similar to real life Allen, Carter etc. In my book this make a lot of serviceable guys not worthy of a minimal deal in free agency.
2. I do love the fact though that top talent aka guys who can play starter minutes or solid bench minutes have personalities. Like others have said this adds another dynamic to team construction. It also makes it a challenge. Do you gamble and keep guys unhappy at the chance of winning or just keep guys happy and maybe not get that piece that takes you over the tip.
Now I do not have a solution as editing players attitudes and playing time demands would take far too much work. Perhaps just the guys GM's may use can be edited a bit. So scrub guys don't demand silly playing time and some of their attitudes are not team destructive.
I will just finish with damn you Mo Cheeks you killed so many teams happiness over the years (Bulls during the Walton years included)!
|
|