OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Rasnell's Bugs

Garlon · 07-16-2006, 06:57 PM

I just ran a test simulation from 1925-1935 using my 3yrwave expectancy file. Here are the top 3 Hr hitters each season:

1925: Ruth 46, Hartnett 45, Hornsby 45,
1926: Hornsby 30, Brooks 28, Stearnes 28
1927: Stearnes 33, Bottomley 31, Hornsby 29
1928: Stearnes 42, Ott 39, Gehrig 32
1929: Ott 61, Klein 56, Herman 46
1930: Leonard 45, Berger 44, Foxx 43
1931: Foxx 55, Ott 48, Leonard 37
1932: Ott 43, Foxx 39, Leonard 33
1933: Leonard 53, Foxx 46, Ott 45
1934: Foxx 46, Leonard 44, Ott 38
1935: Foxx 43, Gehrig 41, Ott 39

I'm not seeing any problems with a lack of players hitting 40+ Hrs. There were even four 50+ Hr seasons in this span. Note, I did set the schedule length to 162 games instead of 154, but an extra 8 games on the schedule wouldn't amount to more than 1 or 2 Hrs even for the best Hr hitters.

07-16-2006, 06:57 PM	#34
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,377	I just ran a test simulation from 1925-1935 using my 3yrwave expectancy file. Here are the top 3 Hr hitters each season: 1925: Ruth 46, Hartnett 45, Hornsby 45, 1926: Hornsby 30, Brooks 28, Stearnes 28 1927: Stearnes 33, Bottomley 31, Hornsby 29 1928: Stearnes 42, Ott 39, Gehrig 32 1929: Ott 61, Klein 56, Herman 46 1930: Leonard 45, Berger 44, Foxx 43 1931: Foxx 55, Ott 48, Leonard 37 1932: Ott 43, Foxx 39, Leonard 33 1933: Leonard 53, Foxx 46, Ott 45 1934: Foxx 46, Leonard 44, Ott 38 1935: Foxx 43, Gehrig 41, Ott 39 I'm not seeing any problems with a lack of players hitting 40+ Hrs. There were even four 50+ Hr seasons in this span. Note, I did set the schedule length to 162 games instead of 154, but an extra 8 games on the schedule wouldn't amount to more than 1 or 2 Hrs even for the best Hr hitters.