[David Watts]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

If the OP is playing the original schedule (the one that the league agreed on and published in the pre-season), then all the teams should be playing 162 games. I understand the OP's complaint to refer to the as-played schedule, not the as-scheduled schedule. Presumably, the as-played schedules don't have games that are rainouts or other cancellations, but they would have the make-up games. Some rainouts aren't replayed, so some teams wouldn't play a full schedule, but if the as-played schedules had both the rainouts and the make-up games, teams would potentially be playing more than 162 games in a season. And really, if the choice is between some teams playing fewer than 162 games to a decision or some teams playing more than 162 games, I think the right choice is the former. After all, that's what ended up happening in real life, so I don't think there's much reason to complain.

I'll add that I don't like how OOTP handles cancelled games for the pre-lights era (roughly before 1940). Today, if a game is halted because of the weather, it is replayed from the point of the stoppage. That's why you almost never see tied games in MLB today. Before the widespread use of lights, however, games that were halted after the fifth inning because of weather or darkness and where neither team qualified for a win were simply declared ties and the game was replayed from the start at a later date. That can't happen in OOTP, which uses the modern approach for all eras.

Just curious, if one doesn't exactly care about everything being 100% true to history, couldn't they simply load the "as scheduled" schedule from the file prior to each season? I'm sure there will be a lot of games that just get OOTP generated lineups and pitchers and one might end up with games with the same pitcher starting back to back games, but it seems like the majority of the games would get "as played" lineups. Or, am I missing something obvious?