Historical results much improved!

Thundercrack · 03-14-2024, 08:09 AM

The game always did a good job approximating overall league totals, but individual players often failed to replicate their individual results. Always had issues with particular players, Mathewson, W. Johnson, etc. Not anymore! Started in 1903, simmed about 15 seasons and so far the results are very good. Players putting up numbers almost identical to their real life results, even wins for pitchers, which was an issue. Congrats devs!

Matt Arnold · 03-14-2024, 08:31 AM

Along with several members of the beta team, we put in a lot of work to get the results.

David Watts · 03-14-2024, 09:23 AM

This is so great to hear. Thanks for posting this. If you get to more modern times, let us know how Catfish Hunter and Jim Palmer do.

Sweed · 03-14-2024, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Along with several members of the beta team, we put in a lot of work to get the results.

Wait, what? I read on these boards the only thing you work on is PT. That's wrong? You still actually add and improve features in OOTP too?

In all seriousness your continued work to improve the OOTP experience year to year is appreciated. I only dabble in historical as a side game, but it's good to see the historical players getting some love this year.

32koufax · 03-14-2024, 09:50 AM

This is great news!!! I only play historical replays. I'm in!!

Just D/L the game. Thanks for your efforts.

Jack

Charlie Hough · 03-14-2024, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Along with several members of the beta team, we put in a lot of work to get the results.

As someone who was following all the work that was being done, I can attest to that! There was a core group of long-term historical gamers who were constantly running sims from 1901 to the present, analyzing results on a macro-level and individual level, and providing feedback with every beta build. The development team and those guys worked together to make many improvements and fix issues along the way.

By the end, the numbers looked better than they've ever been, and the group seemed pretty happy. But they are always looking to keep perfecting things in the future. I'm glad that we have some of those hard-core and committed folks, as it helps enable major improvements and frees up other people to test and improve other aspects of historical games.

TimRSA47 · 03-14-2024, 12:01 PM

Gotta see Bonds' 01-04 numbers. I've never been able to capture the depth of the magic as well as real life, but I'm super excited to try it out.

I could see myself pretty much solely playing historical if these changes are as good as many people are saying they are.

LansdowneSt · 03-14-2024, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 32koufax

This is great news!!! I only play historical replays. I'm in!!

Just D/L the game. Thanks for your efforts.

Jack

For games electing "Replay Mode", the coaching system and development lab are still left on unless you go in and change them to off. These are two things that I turn off manually before running historical transaction/line-up replay games to assess results.

I realize that having the lab on probably doesn't matter since development itself is disabled, but I like to be sure when running historical tests.

32koufax · 03-14-2024, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

For games electing "Replay Mode", the coaching system and development lab are still left on unless you go in and change them to off. These are two things that I turn off manually before running historical transaction/line-up replay games to assess results.

I realize that having the lab on probably doesn't matter since development itself is disabled, but I like to be sure when running historical tests.

Thank you for that suggestion!!

Jeff1787 · 03-14-2024, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundercrack

The game always did a good job approximating overall league totals, but individual players often failed to replicate their individual results. Always had issues with particular players, Mathewson, W. Johnson, etc. Not anymore! Started in 1903, simmed about 15 seasons and so far the results are very good. Players putting up numbers almost identical to their real life results, even wins for pitchers, which was an issue. Congrats devs!

What settings do you use?

AESP_pres · 03-14-2024, 02:47 PM

So I can expect the pitcher strikeout number to be more realist that they were in OOTP24? This is the league I use to do my FG and this is very low compare to any other previous version... seriously five players with a 15K game from 1871 to 1955

Thundercrack · 03-14-2024, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff1787

What settings do you use?

one year recalc, real transactions and lineups. didnt' play around with anything else, just wanted to jump in

uruguru · 03-14-2024, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AESP_pres

So I can expect the pitcher strikeout number to be more realist that they were in OOTP24? This is the league I use to do my FG and this is very low compare to any other previous version... seriously five players with a 15K game from 1871 to 1955

Pretty sure the realism being improved upon relates to season totals. Peak games for pitchers (high-K, no-hitters) do not really align with history. Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax are not going to throw all of their no-hitters.

Rain King · 03-14-2024, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uruguru

Pretty sure the realism being improved upon relates to season totals. Peak games for pitchers (high-K, no-hitters) do not really align with history. Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax are not going to throw all of their no-hitters.

No hitters is an extremely volatile statistic. I don't think it is a stat you can expect any kind of simulation engine to be able to replicate.

WestCoastGuy · 03-15-2024, 02:04 AM

That's good (these historic changes). I'm still deciding whether or not to get 25, but this is definitely a solid push towards the yes side.

italyprof · 03-15-2024, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uruguru

Pretty sure the realism being improved upon relates to season totals. Peak games for pitchers (high-K, no-hitters) do not really align with history. Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax are not going to throw all of their no-hitters.

So you're saying that Bobby Thomson won't hit a three-run homer to win a special third playoff game in the bottom of the 9th off Ralph Branca?

What a ripoff...

Pelican · 03-15-2024, 09:36 AM

Curious if the OP sim starting in 1903 included the Federal League in 1914 and 1915 (and beyond?). It's hard to replicate the 1914-1915 NL and AL, without showing where players went (to FL teams).

David Watts · 03-15-2024, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelican

Curious if the OP sim starting in 1903 included the Federal League in 1914 and 1915 (and beyond?). It's hard to replicate the 1914-1915 NL and AL, without showing where players went (to FL teams).

Said he used real lineups and transactions, so the players that were in the Federal League would not be in his MLB sim results.

Thundercrack · 03-15-2024, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

Said he used real lineups and transactions, so the players that were in the Federal League would not be in his MLB sim results.

This

Skrabec1 · 03-15-2024, 10:56 AM

Hi,

Will The Historical Exhibition module reflect all these positive changes?

03-14-2024, 08:09 AM	#1
Thundercrack All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 876	Historical results much improved! The game always did a good job approximating overall league totals, but individual players often failed to replicate their individual results. Always had issues with particular players, Mathewson, W. Johnson, etc. Not anymore! Started in 1903, simmed about 15 seasons and so far the results are very good. Players putting up numbers almost identical to their real life results, even wins for pitchers, which was an issue. Congrats devs!

03-14-2024, 09:50 AM	#5
32koufax Minors (Single A) Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 92	HISTORICAL STATS and REPLAYS... This is great news!!! I only play historical replays. I'm in!! Just D/L the game. Thanks for your efforts. Jack

03-14-2024, 02:47 PM	#11
AESP_pres Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Province of Quebec Posts: 4,194	So I can expect the pitcher strikeout number to be more realist that they were in OOTP24? This is the league I use to do my FG and this is very low compare to any other previous version... seriously five players with a 15K game from 1871 to 1955 Attached Images __________________ Complete set of the FGs I have updated for the pack 1871 to 1970 Updated FGs who aren't in the pack yet. 1961 to 1970

03-15-2024, 09:36 AM	#17
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 3,198	Curious if the OP sim starting in 1903 included the Federal League in 1914 and 1915 (and beyond?). It's hard to replicate the 1914-1915 NL and AL, without showing where players went (to FL teams). __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.”

03-15-2024, 10:56 AM	#20
Skrabec1 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 74	Historical Exhibition Hi, Will The Historical Exhibition module reflect all these positive changes?

03-14-2024, 08:31 AM	#2
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 16,244	Along with several members of the beta team, we put in a lot of work to get the results.

03-14-2024, 09:23 AM	#3
David Watts Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks Posts: 10,142 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	This is so great to hear. Thanks for posting this. If you get to more modern times, let us know how Catfish Hunter and Jim Palmer do.

03-14-2024, 12:01 PM	#7
TimRSA47 Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2024 Posts: 1	Gotta see Bonds' 01-04 numbers. I've never been able to capture the depth of the magic as well as real life, but I'm super excited to try it out. I could see myself pretty much solely playing historical if these changes are as good as many people are saying they are.

03-15-2024, 02:04 AM	#15
WestCoastGuy Minors (Double A) Join Date: Nov 2018 Location: American in Europe Posts: 198	That's good (these historic changes). I'm still deciding whether or not to get 25, but this is definitely a solid push towards the yes side.