Interesting...

[drksd4848]

I decided to try an experiment: What if a team from the past - in this case, the '88 Red Sox - replaced the 2016 Red Sox for the 2016 Major League season, playing the 2016 schedule, facing 2016 teams. What would happen?

The '88 Red Sox were a decently talented team with three strong starters and a potent offense. They won 89 games that year (and it should have been more if they hadn't backed into that series against Cleveland at the end of the season, then fold up like a lawn chair in the playoffs. Classic Red Sox.)

You know what happened? They got destroyed in the 2016 season. That's what happened. I did this twice: the first time they won 64 games, the next time they won 56 games. Ouch!

I wonder that gives with that? I shut off injuries, trades, financials, etc to make it as simple as could be and they got their faces torn off!
I never thought they'd dominate, but I never thought they be that bad! 56 wins? Sheesh...

Anybody ever try something like this before? Does OOTP compensate for improved players over time? Are the players THAT much better now-a-days; and OOTP can account for that? Or is it some sort of glitch where OOTP cannot account for a "fish out of water" as in a team out of it's era, so to speak?

[canaveral]

I assume you played the '88 Sox under 2016 player performance standards and got skewed results. Perhaps you could try your league with neutralized stats. Or choose a year in the middle, say 2002, as your standard to equalize the differences in eras.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

I decided to try an experiment: What if a team from the past - in this case, the '88 Red Sox - replaced the 2016 Red Sox for the 2016 Major League season, playing the 2016 schedule, facing 2016 teams. What would happen?

The '88 Red Sox were a decently talented team with three strong starters and a potent offense. They won 89 games that year (and it should have been more if they hadn't backed into that series against Cleveland at the end of the season, then fold up like a lawn chair in the playoffs. Classic Red Sox.)

You know what happened? They got destroyed in the 2016 season. That's what happened. I did this twice: the first time they won 64 games, the next time they won 56 games. Ouch!

I wonder that gives with that? I shut off injuries, trades, financials, etc to make it as simple as could be and they got their faces torn off!
I never thought they'd dominate, but I never thought they be that bad! 56 wins? Sheesh...

Anybody ever try something like this before? Does OOTP compensate for improved players over time? Are the players THAT much better now-a-days; and OOTP can account for that? Or is it some sort of glitch where OOTP cannot account for a "fish out of water" as in a team out of it's era, so to speak?

I think you've caught it with the bolded. The workout regimens, video analysis of opposing pitchers and swing mechanics, advances in coaching/medical techniques, etc. have made the average player today physically capable of what only the best players of yesterday could have accomplished. I find this particularly reflected in the defensive ratings of historical players in my historical leagues. So long as the relative distribution of ratings is appropriate (so that the 1988 best players are appropriately better than the 1988 median or worst players), I think it's entirely appropriate to have any 1988 team with real vs neutralized ratings get destroyed by the rest of MLB in 2016.

[drksd4848]

If what you both are saying is true, I am absolutely AMAZED how sophisticated the gaming engine in OOTP is, if it can account for that.

I kind of get why Markus had been hesitant to add the historical exhibition feature...

In reality, it's ludicrous. If Pedro Martinez faced the '27 Yankees - where the Yankees got caught in some weird timewarp and had to play baseball today - he'd throw a perfect game with 27 strikeouts...

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

If what you both are saying is true, I am absolutely AMAZED how sophisticated the gaming engine in OOTP is, if it can account for that.

I kind of get why Markus had been hesitant to add the historical exhibition feature...

In reality, it's ludicrous. If Pedro Martinez faced the '27 Yankees - where the Yankees got caught in some weird timewarp and had to play baseball today - he'd throw a perfect game with 27 strikeouts...

I think this is part of why the Random Debut option for historical players has so much appeal, in concert with using Player Development. The real "what if" isn't having the 2004 Red Sox obliterate the 1927 Yankees, it's "what if" Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, or Bob Feller grew up in a peer level age with a crop from another era, with equal access to the various coaching, scouting, nutrition, and physical fitness as those more modern players?

The idea of Babe Ruth dealing with the media attention of the Barry Bonds era, for example, is quite amusing.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

If what you both are saying is true, I am absolutely AMAZED how sophisticated the gaming engine in OOTP is, if it can account for that.

I kind of get why Markus had been hesitant to add the historical exhibition feature...

In reality, it's ludicrous. If Pedro Martinez faced the '27 Yankees - where the Yankees got caught in some weird timewarp and had to play baseball today - he'd throw a perfect game with 27 strikeouts...

Perhaps not if it were 1927 conditions ie using the same ball for 2-3 innings and/or wearing a heavy scratchy wool uniform that weighs 10+ pounds.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by RchW

Perhaps not if it were 1927 conditions ie using the same ball for 2-3 innings and/or wearing a heavy scratchy wool uniform that weighs 10+ pounds.

Under 1927 conditions, it seems possible that Pedro would only need one ball anyway. The heavy uniform wouldn't bother his teammates much (insert mental image of Manny Ramirez just scratching himself all over in LF for the entire game here) since they wouldn't likely be running around very much for half the game.

Of course, the scenario in the OP was for a past team placed into the future context, as opposed to the other way around. I'd imagine that modern day hitters might not appreciate the single grey orb baseballs of the deadball era if a 2016 team was thrown back into a 1908 league. Or the travel schedule. Or the facilities.

[drksd4848]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

Under 1927 conditions, it seems possible that Pedro would only need one ball anyway. The heavy uniform wouldn't bother his teammates much (insert mental image of Manny Ramirez just scratching himself all over in LF for the entire game here) since they wouldn't likely be running around very much for half the game.

Of course, the scenario in the OP was for a past team placed into the future context, as opposed to the other way around. I'd imagine that modern day hitters might not appreciate the single grey orb baseballs of the deadball era if a 2016 team was thrown back into a 1908 league. Or the travel schedule. Or the facilities.

Most likely, the game would never start because the modern players would file a grievance with the union. The team from 1908 would win by forfeit.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

Most likely, the game would never start because the modern players would file a grievance with the union. The team from 1908 would win by forfeit.

Wait, you just hit on the obvious solution.

The 2016 team would have one player give the entire 1908 opponent for that series 1/2 of 1% of their game checks for that series to have them throw the games. A different player would be responsible for each opponent, rotating for each series. They'd go undefeated.

[drksd4848]

That would be a great era for Pete Rose to make his random debute

[NoOne]

defensive improvements are mostly equipment-related... ever see those old gloves? also, better positioning through better knowledge. simply put, the naked-eye cannot tell you most batters' tendencies. somoene like mo vaughn would be excluded from that rule.

about ratings and historical playes: settigns can influence this greatly. there's a way to normalize the ratings accross eras. if you want teams from distinct eras to play each other on a level field, do that... if you want to see how small-ball from the 20's works against a power-hitting teams from the 90's don't normalize it.

just depends on what you are trying to accomplish. a tourny type thing i'd do the latter, and a long-term league i'd do the previous... but that's just opinion.

[wsenkow]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

Wait, you just hit on the obvious solution.

The 2016 team would have one player give the entire 1908 opponent for that series 1/2 of 1% of their game checks for that series to have them throw the games. A different player would be responsible for each opponent, rotating for each series. They'd go undefeated.

The 1919 White Sox can have it's very own template included in a future version of the game, just for that purpose. It would have a roster list and you just type in a dollar amount in the field next to the player's name. Those dollar amounts become an expense against your team's budget. When you're done just click "Recalculate Bribes Now" and you're good to go.

[drksd4848]

OK, so what can I do to neutralize the playing field?

I've shut off just about every dynamic option I possibly could, plus, when I imported the historical 88 Sox last night for a third time, I checked Neutralized stats, with ratings based on peak seasons and they got steam-rolled again. I've also tried it without neutralized stats and they still get clobbered.

Any ideas on what options I should check/uncheck? I've been using the 2016 default MLB template...

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

OK, so what can I do to neutralize the playing field?

I've shut off just about every dynamic option I possibly could, plus, when I imported the historical 88 Sox last night for a third time, I checked Neutralized stats, with ratings based on peak seasons and they got steam-rolled again. I've also tried it without neutralized stats and they still get clobbered.

Any ideas on what options I should check/uncheck? I've been using the 2016 default MLB template...

You might try using the 1986 Red Sox instead of the 1988 version instead. The 1988 and 1990 Red Sox won the AL's "Tallest Midget" contest by taking the AL East, but they weren't actually particularly good.

At some point, I don't think you can neutralize away the fact that Mike Greenwell should only ever have a glove in case of extreme emergency, Ellis Burks was never quite as good a defensive CF as I and my fellow Red Sox fans remember, neither MIFer were above-average defensively, Todd Benzinger was a pathetic 1B option, and Rich Gedman was run into the ground before the 1988 season ever started. The fork sticking out of Jim Rice's back at that point might have caused some distractions as well.

[drksd4848]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

You might try using the 1986 Red Sox instead of the 1988 version instead. The 1988 and 1990 Red Sox won the AL's "Tallest Midget" contest by taking the AL East, but they weren't actually particularly good.

At some point, I don't think you can neutralize away the fact that Mike Greenwell should only ever have a glove in case of extreme emergency, Ellis Burks was never quite as good a defensive CF as I and my fellow Red Sox fans remember, neither MIFer were above-average defensively, Todd Benzinger was a pathetic 1B option, and Rich Gedman was run into the ground before the 1988 season ever started. The fork sticking out of Jim Rice's back at that point might have caused some distractions as well.

Ahh... Greenwell got a bad rap. I can remember him barehanding balls off the left field wall many times and he was a better fielder than Rice ever was. But Greenie was horrendous in right field. Do you remember when they had to move Dwight Evans back to right (he was playing first base!), because everyone they put out there was gawd-awful?!

I do remember Ellis Burks a pretty good center fielder, but that may also been Evans taking charge out there rather then Burk's fielding.

Funny: I do remember that the 88 Sox were picked to run away with the AL East. Had they fired McNamara when they should have, they would have won a lot more than 89 games. Remember how he lost the clubhouse in the first half?

Anyway, neither here-nor there.

86 would have been a better pick, yes. I just went with the 88 Sox because I really bonded with them - for some reason. '86 was a blur and then such a disappointment in the end, and that carried over to '87.

One thing OOTP really gets right: those '80s Sox teams grounded into SO MANY double plays. I forgot all about that. Plus they left so many runners on base!

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

Ahh... Greenwell got a bad rap. I can remember him barehanding balls off the left field wall many times and he was a better fielder than Rice ever was. But Greenie was horrendous in right field. Do you remember when they had to move Dwight Evans back to right (he was playing first base!), because everyone they put out there was gawd-awful?!

I do remember Ellis Burks a pretty good center fielder, but that may also been Evans taking charge out there rather then Burk's fielding.

Funny: I do remember that the 88 Sox were picked to run away with the AL East. Had they fired McNamara when they should have, they would have won a lot more than 89 games. Remember how he lost the clubhouse in the first half?

Anyway, neither here-nor there.

86 would have been a better pick, yes. I just went with the 88 Sox because I really bonded with them - for some reason. '86 was a blur and then such a disappointment in the end, and that carried over to '87.

One thing OOTP really gets right: those '80s Sox teams grounded into SO MANY double plays. I forgot all about that. Plus they left so many runners on base!

Mike Greenwell was an excellent hitter (briefly), but never more than an adequate fielder. Manny Ramirez got really good at making assists from LF, too, but only an insane person would call him a good LFer overall. Neither had much range, which is more important than anything else in LF. Greenwell also fell off offensively once the league learned to feed him garbage for the 1st pitches that he always swung at. "Better fielder than Jim Rice" is why Greenwell was a bad LFer instead of an excellent DH - Rice was the alternative, and the alternative was worse.

I think I remember Burks being a better CFer than he was because A) he was the only OFer the Sox had during that period that could hit, field, AND run competently, and B) because playing in between Mike Greenwell and The Ghost of Dewey Past made him look awesome by comparison.

I bonded with the 1990 team myself, because I was only 7 during 1988. I don't remember much about the 1988 season, but I've learned quite a bit about the Red Sox teams of the period for other reasons. It was only years later when I went to baseball-reference.com and realized just how miraculous it was that a team with as little talent as the 1990 Red Sox were able to win the AL East. The Sox mostly had teams with 3-4 star players (Clemens, Boggs, Evans/Rice leading to Burks/Greenwell briefly before they fell off the table), surrounded by one-dimensional spare parts around most of the rest of the roster. Those slow, plodding, defensively-challenged (mostly white) players were the result of an incompetent owner who wanted to pretend that it was still the 1930s, with some HR hitters and not much else.

[swampdragon]

Start a 2015 historical league instead of moving them into the 2016 Major League game. I'm curious. That may be the issue.

[drksd4848]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

Start a 2015 historical league instead of moving them into the 2016 Major League game. I'm curious. That may be the issue.

So, I tried that. Using the 2015 Season with reserve rosters and neutralized stats. This time the 88 Sox finished 3rd with 85 wins. THAT seems a little more reasonable...

Bottom line: The gaming engine in OOTP is incredible. I don't know how they do it.

[marc5477]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

In reality, it's ludicrous. If Pedro Martinez faced the '27 Yankees - where the Yankees got caught in some weird timewarp and had to play baseball today - he'd throw a perfect game with 27 strikeouts...

Dont be so sure. This was known as the live ball era in an over reaction to the dead ball era. They corked the ball (or so some claim) and games averaged around 10 runs each. But despite the changes to the ball, pitchers still pretty much started and finished most of their games and were used as relievers as well. 300 ip was common back then.

Modern pitchers wouldnt last in the old game. They would need to pace themselves or get hurt. If they didnt... you would get something like this: Pedro would get 1 perfect games, 1 more shutout, then he would lose the next 5 game before he sustains a long term injury and is out for at least 4 weeks.

Modern pitchers cannot pitch the way they do today, back then. It simply wasn't possible.

As for 88 Sox vs modern. There is no doubt in my mind, the 88 Sox would wipe the floor with them They may not have been great but I looked up the 2015 Sox and laughed at that pitching staff. And besides Ortiz (who is a cheating steroid user and was caught) and that young guy, the rest of the team is 3 above average players and the rest are below average. Almost all of the 88 hitters were above average and they would be facing lousy pitching. They would eat the current team alive. How it works out in the game however is completely dependent on your settings.

[marc5477]

Originally Posted by drksd4848

Any ideas on what options I should check/uncheck? I've been using the 2016 default MLB template...

Did you look at the coaching tendencies? Those are going to be critical; pitcher stamina especially. If you set it to 2015, the 88 pitchers will stink. If you set it to 1988, the 2015 pitchers will greatly improve. The only way you can make it fair is if you went into each pitcher and edit them manually after you set it to one year or the other. So if you do 2015, you need to go into each 88 pitcher and maybe double their stamina (so that it matches what it is normally).

Once that is fixed, you need to decide what to do about "use of relievers." If you use the 2015 then your 88 starters will get yanked early even if they are not tired. This might be ok but you will need to just monitor the games to see if its realistic.