162 Win Season

[roscoe55p]

Is there anyone who believe they can put together a roster they feel could possibly go through an entire season w/o a loss?

[Rain King]

Not if we are talking about real players and/or a fictional approximation of "real life". The best players are not that much better than an average team.

I've shown it is possible to manually edit a team to the point they will go undefeated, however.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by roscoe55p

Is there anyone who believe they can put together a roster they feel could possibly go through an entire season w/o a loss?

You cannot do this with real players against teams in their league.


You might be able to do this with something like the MLB All-Star team against a random AA or A team.

There's occasionally some guy on reddit who brags that his MLB team is magically 43-0 at the start of a season, and he gets laughed into deleting his post.

[panda234]

It doesn’t matter how good a pitcher is, he’s going to have a bad day now and then, as will the other players on the team. It’s theoretically possible to do it with any team, but the odds of any team doing it are just too high.

[spartacus007]

This sounds like a challenge.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by spartacus007

This sounds like a challenge.

This is like saying rolling a 20 on a 20-sided die ten times in a row is a challenge.

Yeah, technically it's a challenge, but whether you succeed or not is mostly out of your control.

And save-scumming trivializes it, so anyone who does it is going to automatically be assumed to be save scumming. For example, give me a long afternoon and I can make the 1962 Mets go 162-0 on Challenge Mode.

[Matt Arnold]

Even a high-A team going up against a team of clones of Judge, Ohtani, Witt, etc... can have a day where everything clicks right and they sneak out a win. Any "real" players will make an error, or just keep hitting the ball into double-plays, or trying to do too much and pop it up.

Had to get down to rookie teams to get it, and even then, while some games ended up 22-0 or 33-2, one game went to 11 innings, and there's a handful of 1-0, 2-0, 3-1, 8-7 games, which are close, all things considered.

[phenom]

A few weeks ago someone posted about a pitcher on their staff and it turned out their team was 153-9, so I'd imagine it's somehow possible in-game, but I doubt it in real life.

[Garlon]

In 2001 the Seattle Mariners won 116 games.

How many games could a super team win in 2001?

You could try this by taking any team and just doing 1 for 1 trades to stockpile all the top talent onto a single team and see what happens.

Bonds, Sosa, Edmonds, Gonzalez, Giambi, Rodriguez, C. Jones, Boone, Piazza.

Maddux, Mussina, Johnson, Clemens, Martinez, Rivera, Nen, Wagner, Percival.


I put together a 1955 super team recently and I think they won 124 games.

Winning 162 games does not seem possible for a super team in any season. As a general rule, for every 10 runs you outscore your opponents you win an extra game. If you score 1000 runs and allow 650 runs, that is +350 runs scored, which roughly translates to an additional 35 wins for your team. 81 + 35 = 116.

To win 162 games you would need to outscore your opponents by about 1620 runs for the season. This does not seem possible even for the most loaded team you can assemble.

[Bobfather]

I super edited many players on my roster and had 1 162-0 season but most seasons as ratings slipped iost about 20 games a season. Now that there are the Enhanced games, maybe editing players up is less cheating,

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Garlon

In 2001 the Seattle Mariners won 116 games.

Yes, I think to the uninitiated it would seem more possible to go 162-0. I mean, after all, 162 wins is 46 more wins than the Mariners, and they've already won 116.

But the difficulty beomes more apparent when you look at the losses.

That incredible Mariners' season had 46 losses. Forty-six! And I'm pretty sure, without looking, that some of those losses were blowouts.

Getting that all of the way down to zero seems insane.

[Garlon]

I agree. How can you find another 46 wins for a 2001 super team? It is impossible for any season even if you grab all the best players and put them on a team.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Garlon

I agree. How can you find another 46 wins for a 2001 super team? It is impossible for any season even if you grab all the best players and put them on a team.

I think the best super, not actually possible, team I ever assembled in OOTP without any editing had 128 wins. That's just 12 more than the 2001 Mariners.

[Pelican]

Not to be a contrarian, but what's the point? I mean, sure, Matt shows that it can be done, so what? Nothing could be more boring than a team that never loses. Where's the fun in playing out 32-3 games? Of course if you cheese the rules, eventually you can do it. If you play solitaire with the cards face up, you can finish real quick every time. I'd rather waste time designing a perfectly competitive league where every team finishes 81-81 or 77-77. Now, that would be a challenge.

[uruguru]

It's a solo game. People put in thousands upon thousands of hours playing it. Sometimes you just want an interesting diversion.

One thing about building a 162-0 team is you quickly find out OOTP has a soft upper limit on runs because you are still limited by league totals for stats. You're never going to win a game by 150-0. As a developer, seeing how OOTP handles extreme situations is interesting.

[NoOne]

turn on 100% accuracy, turn off injuries, allow draft pick trading... you can get to 140+ and 150+ wins.

run a season 10,000 times of those teams and eventually a 140-150 win team will have a lucky season.

Whatever statistical environment that creates a larger difference between median players and the best players will impact how often it'll happen too. Might be a happy zone for that.. too little offense and the distribution gets flatter and too much might have diminishing returns or even some regression?

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by uruguru

One thing about building a 162-0 team is you quickly find out OOTP has a soft upper limit on runs because you are still limited by league totals for stats. You're never going to win a game by 150-0. As a developer, seeing how OOTP handles extreme situations is interesting.

This isn't how the League Totals work.

League Totals aren't a limit, they are an environment target. If your player ratings are skewed from what the game considers to be "average" then your outcomes will also be skewed. The game does not box you into those totals.

There is a process called "Autocalc" which modifies your League Totals based on the actual ratings of the players in your league. That process is designed to fit the ratings of your league into the league totals that are set...but that process is not required (and wouldn't be necessary if League Totals themselves were actually a limit).

I'm not going to bother creating a team of all 600 ratings to play vs. a team with all 1 ratings...but if someone wants to give it a try I would bet that those results would be quite extreme.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Not to be a contrarian, but what's the point? I mean, sure, Matt shows that it can be done, so what? Nothing could be more boring than a team that never loses. Where's the fun in playing out 32-3 games? Of course if you cheese the rules, eventually you can do it. If you play solitaire with the cards face up, you can finish real quick every time. I'd rather waste time designing a perfectly competitive league where every team finishes 81-81 or 77-77. Now, that would be a challenge.

This.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Rain King

This isn't how the League Totals work.

League Totals aren't a limit, they are an environment target. If your player ratings are skewed from what the game considers to be "average" then your outcomes will also be skewed. The game does not box you into those totals.

Yes, they are a target and player ratings get recalced so the league totals are near the target.


But if you put all of the best players against the worst players for 162 games, there is some sort of offensive limit in the individual games that would never occur in the real world.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Yes, they are a target and player ratings get recalced so the league totals are near the target.

Recalc, just like Autocalc, is an optional setting specifically for historical play. It has nothing to do with how the league settings work outside of it is used to re-set player ratings. You can, however, manually change the ratings for any player to very bad or very good and get results that are nowhere near the "target".

But if you put all of the best players against the worst players for 162 games, there is some sort of offensive limit in the individual games that would never occur in the real world.

What do you base this claim on?