Players playing far too long?

Hammer755 · 06-11-2006, 12:56 AM

I ran a historical test sim beginning in 1901 up to the expansion era using the ArodGarlon DB, and it appears as though that many, many players are enjoying 25+ year careers. I inadvertantly left injuries off for the duration of the sim (I meant to change the option after the Dead Ball Era, but neglected to do so), so I'm not sure how that skews the data.

Here's the index of my html reports - http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/index.html

IRL, there have been 23 players with 10,000 or more AB. In my test-sim, there were more than double that just through 1960. You can see from the test AB leaderboard just how many guys are playing more than 20 years.

fantom1979 · 06-11-2006, 01:11 AM

ummm, not to get too far off subject, but may I ask why Babe Ruth has 979 stolen bases.

Raidergoo · 06-11-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantom1979

ummm, not to get too far off subject, but may I ask why Babe Ruth has 979 stolen bases.

Please leave this up as a resource for evaluation. It is fantastic.

I shall make it a bookmark. Not to be pushy, but sim with injuries turned on around 1920 ( look to Tiger Fan for best practices ) and get it up to 2005 ASAP.

Please?

If more people followed in Hammer755's footsteps, it would be glorious. Recall how effective the posting of beta data dumps were.

Leaving injuries off will a very dramatic prolonging of player's careers.

OakDragon · 06-11-2006, 01:26 AM

Having no injuries must skew the data drastically, it seems to me. No CEI's, no declining careers from mounting injuries that hobbled the player, etc. I don't see how we can come to a reasonable conclusion about career length problems when injuries are turned off. We have nothing to compare it to, i.e. no real life baseball without injuries.

Heh, posted while Raidergoo added his last line.

JohnVee · 06-11-2006, 01:41 AM

Looking just at the top game played leaders you have folks like Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, & Hank Greenberg who missed lots of games for various reasons. Gehrig is obvious but Williams and Breenberg missed many seasonhs due to war service.

And look at your games played leaderboard you have players in the 1800s playing 170 + games!

JohnVee · 06-11-2006, 01:51 AM

If you look at the "HP" in the leader boards appearances for, say, Kofaux you find he led the league in this stat (= hbp?) in each of his seasons with zero. And if you look at other pitchers you find they all seem to have come out as #1 on that stat with 0.

http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/p...ayer_4777.html
http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/p...ayer_4657.html
http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/p...ayer_4883.html

HerbD · 06-11-2006, 04:14 PM

I had the same problem the first time I ran a 1901~2005 sim...I had forgotten to change the injury from low to normal and I had the aging modifiers set at 1.2.

The second time I ran the sim I set the aging modifiers at 1.5 and I changed injuries and fatigue from low to normal after 1910. As a result I had only 19 players with 10,000+ AB for their career and only 9 of those 19 didn't play in the 1800s. My sim was not the normal historical replay as I didn't include any expansion so it would seem logical that fewer players would reach the 10,000 AB mark. The numbers look pretty good with the aging modifiers at 1.5...if I were to do it again I might lower it just a bit.

onthepunt · 06-11-2006, 04:46 PM

the AI made Zito pitch 160 pitches over 11 innings, complete game.

Hammer755 · 06-12-2006, 12:10 AM

I ran the sim up through 1960 again, this time adjusting the injury frequency to Average in 1920, as Raidergoo suggested. I was shocked that the injury impact turned out to be so large, as the career number came far more into line with real history. I'm re-running the test one more time for verification and hope to post the results here sometime tomorrow.

fantom1979 · 06-12-2006, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I ran the sim up through 1960 again, this time adjusting the injury frequency to Average in 1920, as Raidergoo suggested. I was shocked that the injury impact turned out to be so large, as the career number came far more into line with real history. I'm re-running the test one more time for verification and hope to post the results here sometime tomorrow.

Thanks Hammer, looking forward to your results.

tysok · 06-12-2006, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I ran the sim up through 1960 again, this time adjusting the injury frequency to Average in 1920, as Raidergoo suggested. I was shocked that the injury impact turned out to be so large, as the career number came far more into line with real history. I'm re-running the test one more time for verification and hope to post the results here sometime tomorrow.

It makes sense that injuries could have that big an effect. What's shocking to me is that the game takes that into account. Not only by missed time from injuries, but it seems from what I read that it's taking into account (at least to some extent) the building up of those injuries.
For one example, if there were no injuries in real baseball Bonds would have played last year and surely had another 20 HRs and be making a serious run at Aaron this year
Mark McGwire may have more career homeruns, or he may have the same amount since he'd have had no reason to start using Andro. (Don't turn it into a steroids thread please, it's just an example).
If there were no injuries Kerry Wod might be getting paid to actually PLAY in baseball games the last couple years. But according to my wife he looks cute in a cubs uniform sitting on the bench... guess it's money well spent.

Anyhow it'll be interesting to see your final numbers.

Hammer755 · 06-12-2006, 01:34 AM

Just finished with the re-re-sim, and it confirms the results of V2 - injuries have a gigantic effect on career lengths. Through 1960, 21 players reached 10,000 AB - however, only one of them played after 1920, which was when I turned injuries back on. There were also only 7 400+ HR hitters, as opposed to 17 in my original no-injuries run.

I am not planning to go beyond 1960 for now, as was suggested, although I would love to. However, without accounting for expansion, which I really don't have time to do right now, any results would be meaningless, IMO.

Petard · 06-12-2006, 02:32 AM

I like how your league (from the link posted in the first post) has 16 championships going to the LA Dodgers and a grand total of 0 going to the Yanks.

thefullydown7 · 06-12-2006, 04:31 PM

Just a question on this topic as I am new to the series and havent gotten the game yet (waiting for my laptop to come in)...do injuries affect a player after he has recovered? Ex- Can repeated knee injuries slow a player or end his career (not like a serious injury ending a career but a series of minor or less serious injuries)? thanks in advance fellas!

Raidergoo · 06-12-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefullydown7

Can repeated knee injuries slow a player or end his career (not like a serious injury ending a career but a series of minor or less serious injuries)?

That's how many players are ruined in this game. Some injuries are like acid.

Syd Thrift · 06-12-2006, 05:26 PM

In these historical sims, I wonder if the "historical accuracy" coupled with the injuries is what's keeping pitchers from 300 wins and players from 3000 hits. In a sim using players from the Lahman database, the best players created are going to be the Ty Cobbs, Babe Ruths, and so on. The Harry Agganises and Buzz Arletts, guys who could have been great if a couple things broke right for them (in Agganis's case, if he hadn't have died so young) are not given really great potentials. So when a Cobb goes down, there is literally nobody around to replace him.

I understand that that's a great reason to set injuries to Low, but you have to realize that when you do that you're also going to basically ignore all the niggling injuries and worsening health that cut into Babe Ruth's career (for example) and left him out of baseball far earlier than he wanted to leave. Of COURSE the Babe is going to last a long time if he doesn't battle day-to-day injuries as much. The solution here is not to wait for a patch IMO but to change the aging and development settings to your liking.

The thing is, I have injuries at normal in deadball era leagues and things still look really, really good to me. You have guys getting 3000 hits, 300 wins, and all those other milestones.

06-11-2006, 01:11 AM	#2
fantom1979 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 3,498	ummm, not to get too far off subject, but may I ask why Babe Ruth has 979 stolen bases. __________________

06-11-2006, 04:14 PM	#7
HerbD All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Indiana Posts: 976	I had the same problem the first time I ran a 1901~2005 sim...I had forgotten to change the injury from low to normal and I had the aging modifiers set at 1.2. The second time I ran the sim I set the aging modifiers at 1.5 and I changed injuries and fatigue from low to normal after 1910. As a result I had only 19 players with 10,000+ AB for their career and only 9 of those 19 didn't play in the 1800s. My sim was not the normal historical replay as I didn't include any expansion so it would seem logical that fewer players would reach the 10,000 AB mark. The numbers look pretty good with the aging modifiers at 1.5...if I were to do it again I might lower it just a bit. __________________

06-11-2006, 12:56 AM	#1
Hammer755 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,348	Players playing far too long? I ran a historical test sim beginning in 1901 up to the expansion era using the ArodGarlon DB, and it appears as though that many, many players are enjoying 25+ year careers. I inadvertantly left injuries off for the duration of the sim (I meant to change the option after the Dead Ball Era, but neglected to do so), so I'm not sure how that skews the data. Here's the index of my html reports - http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/index.html IRL, there have been 23 players with 10,000 or more AB. In my test-sim, there were more than double that just through 1960. You can see from the test AB leaderboard just how many guys are playing more than 20 years.

06-11-2006, 01:26 AM	#4
OakDragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: San Jose, CA USA Posts: 3,494	Having no injuries must skew the data drastically, it seems to me. No CEI's, no declining careers from mounting injuries that hobbled the player, etc. I don't see how we can come to a reasonable conclusion about career length problems when injuries are turned off. We have nothing to compare it to, i.e. no real life baseball without injuries. Heh, posted while Raidergoo added his last line.

06-11-2006, 01:41 AM	#5
JohnVee Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 39	Looking just at the top game played leaders you have folks like Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, & Hank Greenberg who missed lots of games for various reasons. Gehrig is obvious but Williams and Breenberg missed many seasonhs due to war service. And look at your games played leaderboard you have players in the 1800s playing 170 + games!

06-11-2006, 01:51 AM	#6
JohnVee Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 39	If you look at the "HP" in the leader boards appearances for, say, Kofaux you find he led the league in this stat (= hbp?) in each of his seasons with zero. And if you look at other pitchers you find they all seem to have come out as #1 on that stat with 0. http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/p...ayer_4777.html http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/p...ayer_4657.html http://www.hammer755.com/1901/html/p...ayer_4883.html

06-11-2006, 04:46 PM	#8
onthepunt Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 139	the AI made Zito pitch 160 pitches over 11 innings, complete game.

06-12-2006, 12:10 AM	#9
Hammer755 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,348	I ran the sim up through 1960 again, this time adjusting the injury frequency to Average in 1920, as Raidergoo suggested. I was shocked that the injury impact turned out to be so large, as the career number came far more into line with real history. I'm re-running the test one more time for verification and hope to post the results here sometime tomorrow.

06-12-2006, 01:34 AM	#12
Hammer755 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,348	Just finished with the re-re-sim, and it confirms the results of V2 - injuries have a gigantic effect on career lengths. Through 1960, 21 players reached 10,000 AB - however, only one of them played after 1920, which was when I turned injuries back on. There were also only 7 400+ HR hitters, as opposed to 17 in my original no-injuries run. I am not planning to go beyond 1960 for now, as was suggested, although I would love to. However, without accounting for expansion, which I really don't have time to do right now, any results would be meaningless, IMO.

06-12-2006, 02:32 AM	#13
Petard Bat Boy Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 17	I like how your league (from the link posted in the first post) has 16 championships going to the LA Dodgers and a grand total of 0 going to the Yanks.

06-12-2006, 04:31 PM	#14
thefullydown7 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 40	Just a question on this topic as I am new to the series and havent gotten the game yet (waiting for my laptop to come in)...do injuries affect a player after he has recovered? Ex- Can repeated knee injuries slow a player or end his career (not like a serious injury ending a career but a series of minor or less serious injuries)? thanks in advance fellas!

06-12-2006, 05:26 PM	#16
Syd Thrift Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,655	In these historical sims, I wonder if the "historical accuracy" coupled with the injuries is what's keeping pitchers from 300 wins and players from 3000 hits. In a sim using players from the Lahman database, the best players created are going to be the Ty Cobbs, Babe Ruths, and so on. The Harry Agganises and Buzz Arletts, guys who could have been great if a couple things broke right for them (in Agganis's case, if he hadn't have died so young) are not given really great potentials. So when a Cobb goes down, there is literally nobody around to replace him. I understand that that's a great reason to set injuries to Low, but you have to realize that when you do that you're also going to basically ignore all the niggling injuries and worsening health that cut into Babe Ruth's career (for example) and left him out of baseball far earlier than he wanted to leave. Of COURSE the Babe is going to last a long time if he doesn't battle day-to-day injuries as much. The solution here is not to wait for a patch IMO but to change the aging and development settings to your liking. The thing is, I have injuries at normal in deadball era leagues and things still look really, really good to me. You have guys getting 3000 hits, 300 wins, and all those other milestones.