OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Eclzeastes · 12-07-2002, 01:30 AM

Here is some quick research done regarding stadiums and team records for everyone to look at.

I used some National League World Series of the 90's and on for this. They included Mets, Braves, Phillies, Padres, Reds. I eliminated a few teams because because data was taking awhile to locate or team was not around long enough to tabulate (ie Marlins).

METS 64'+ 4 World Series 21 Sub-.500 seasons
BRAVES 66'-96' 4 World Series 17 Sub-.500 seasons
PHILLIES 71'+ 4 World Series 18 Sub-.500 seasons
PADRES 69'+ 2 World Series 22 Sub-.500 seasons
REDS 70'+ 5 World Series 10 Sub-.500 seasons

The numbers are pretty amazing considering the sample. The Reds stand out as a solid team for the last 30 years but you can see the other 4 teams listed have seen alot of the bottom.

During these years the teams above played in the SAME ballpark the entire time. What I mean to illustrate is that even though the stadium remained the same... records varied a lot. Teams go from top to bottom and bottom to top without needing a stadium change to do so.

Although I did not list them above the Yankees have played in the same stadium since 1923 and have finished 1st an amazing 32 times... but have finished 3rd or worse 23 times as well.

EVERY NL team listed above finished 6th or worse at some point during the periods listed yet somehow were able to win World Series without new stadiums.

Now the original post put forth the problem that the OOTP sim was creating too many great (rich, winning, etc) teams and a lot of piss poor (broke, losing, etc) teams. There was a weakness in the middle.

If in real life MLB there is an certain ratio and this game bases its model on the statistics of MLB then why is it that ratio of winners/losers is coming out so odd?

I propose that stadiums should not be the focus. As you can see above, in the real MLB which is the model, stadium changes are not a huge factor in creating winners and losers.

Also as a trivia fact for everyone that was discovered by accident... PacBell was the first privately financed ballpark in the MLB since Dodger Stadium in 1962.

That trivia fact would put forth evidence that GM's and owners have little to do with how the stadiums are actually run in a majority of ballparks in MLB.

12-07-2002, 01:30 AM	#67
Eclzeastes Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26	Research Here is some quick research done regarding stadiums and team records for everyone to look at. I used some National League World Series of the 90's and on for this. They included Mets, Braves, Phillies, Padres, Reds. I eliminated a few teams because because data was taking awhile to locate or team was not around long enough to tabulate (ie Marlins). METS 64'+ 4 World Series 21 Sub-.500 seasons BRAVES 66'-96' 4 World Series 17 Sub-.500 seasons PHILLIES 71'+ 4 World Series 18 Sub-.500 seasons PADRES 69'+ 2 World Series 22 Sub-.500 seasons REDS 70'+ 5 World Series 10 Sub-.500 seasons The numbers are pretty amazing considering the sample. The Reds stand out as a solid team for the last 30 years but you can see the other 4 teams listed have seen alot of the bottom. During these years the teams above played in the SAME ballpark the entire time. What I mean to illustrate is that even though the stadium remained the same... records varied a lot. Teams go from top to bottom and bottom to top without needing a stadium change to do so. Although I did not list them above the Yankees have played in the same stadium since 1923 and have finished 1st an amazing 32 times... but have finished 3rd or worse 23 times as well. EVERY NL team listed above finished 6th or worse at some point during the periods listed yet somehow were able to win World Series without new stadiums. Now the original post put forth the problem that the OOTP sim was creating too many great (rich, winning, etc) teams and a lot of piss poor (broke, losing, etc) teams. There was a weakness in the middle. If in real life MLB there is an certain ratio and this game bases its model on the statistics of MLB then why is it that ratio of winners/losers is coming out so odd? I propose that stadiums should not be the focus. As you can see above, in the real MLB which is the model, stadium changes are not a huge factor in creating winners and losers. Also as a trivia fact for everyone that was discovered by accident... PacBell was the first privately financed ballpark in the MLB since Dodger Stadium in 1962. That trivia fact would put forth evidence that GM's and owners have little to do with how the stadiums are actually run in a majority of ballparks in MLB.