Quote:
Originally Posted by ctorg
For one thing, with pitchers, don't look at things like ERA and W-L records. Look at K, BB, and HR ratios, because that's what OOTP is really doing. The rest of how a pitcher performs has to do with things like BABIP, which he doesn't really control.
For another, we'd really need to see some baseline numbers to compare these to. How does this stack up against an established game like DMB? If the deviations are similar, I think it's safe to say that the game does a good job. There are so many things to take into account - players face different combinations of players than in real life, and there is still in-season ratings change, even when recalc is on.
For another thing, beyond all that, OOTP is designed to be less predictable than games like DMB and SOM. One star players should have occasional brilliant seasons, and superstars have occasional off years. The game is not a season simulator.
|
Good points. Based on my experience, DMB has some variation, too, especially pre-1980 seasons, I think. Most of the time, the results compare better to RL than OOTP. Part of the challenge of taking a historic team is to see if your coaching decisions make a difference in the season outcome. Can you win the pennant with a team that finished 6 or 10 games out of first IRL? In DMB, that's a fair challenge. In OOTP, based on what I've seen, it's not the same challenge. Even with player development (and other variables) off, it's hard to know if your decisions as a manager really affected the outcome. It's not uncommon to sim a historical season and see a last place team IRL win the pennant in OOTP.
Here's another thought: Some people like to set up a league in OOTP with the greatest teams in baseball history. Were the 1927 Yankees the best team ever? Based on what we know about OOTP, would we really be able to trust the results? I'm not so sure.