1967 or 1867?

[hibees70]

Is this realistic for the 1967 setting that PT is using this week?
My Edinburgh Diamond Dawgs lost to Glen Head Strats 1-0 in 16 innings.Hershiser went 15 innings for me throwing 163 pitches while Cooper went 13 innings for Strats throwing 145 pitches.Early 1900s maybe but surely not 1967.
Still,I’m not complaining.Hershiser got 7500PP for his losing effort.

[Big Poppy]

More like the Battle of Chatham during the Anglo-Dutch War of 1667.

[hibees70]

Just looked it up.Described as one of the worst humilations for the English.Can’t be a bad thing!
At least there was some action,unlike this week in PT.

[Matt Arnold]

I mean, in 1967 Gaylord Perry had a game where he threw 16 innings and faced 59 batters. They don't seem to record pitch counts, but I think there's a decent chance he averaged at least 3 pitches per batter in it. I don't think it was a common occurrence, but it did happen: https://www.baseball-reference.com/b...96709010.shtml

[Big Poppy]

Home run leader in mid July in my league has 16 bangers.
Only one player above .317 batting average.

[cwhitman]

the range of quality in real life is much more than the range of quality in PT. the overall batting numbers are very similar to what they looked like in that year

[Orion]

Of course they do, it's not like they aren't using the real math to come up with these modifications. And OOTP's game engine, while not perfect, certainly 'snaps back' to the mean effectively.

[Big Poppy]

Originally Posted by Orion

Of course they do, it's not like they aren't using the real math to come up with these modifications. And OOTP's game engine, while not perfect, certainly 'snaps back' to the mean effectively.

I understand the mean reversion model. Was swing/day trader for 25+ years.

But that isn't exactly what happens in 154 or 162 games. Not close. (the predictability of reversion is tuned way to high now, even in modern era IMHO)

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Big Poppy

I understand the mean reversion model. Was swing/day trader for 25+ years.

But that isn't exactly what happens in 154 or 162 games. Not close. (the predictability of reversion is tuned way to high now, even in modern era IMHO)

I completely agree on the reversion thing, but wasn't it always this way?

[LeeD]

Yes, but people don't talk about it much. It's amazing how many players wake up and smell the coffee after the All-Star break.

[Leo_The_Lip]

This season feels more like 1968 then 1967.

My copy of Honus Wagner is second in BA wiith .284 to a Carew at .308. Shades of Yaz and Danny Cater in 1968,

Also, PT is down to 7656 teams now.

[Big Poppy]

It is a tough cycle for OOTP. You can feel it.
I do love this game.

The balance bet. missions, packs, and card shop seems off.
No incentive to buy packs (endless dups), marketplace is illiquid, and everyone has the same mission cards.

[Big Poppy]

Time to eliminate the category 'Relief Pitcher'. Missions get you 10 starters.

[LeeD]

Here's a perfect example of OOTP's reversion model in action. Bob Veale, May 29, 0-10 with a 5.54 ERA. Worst starting pitcher in the league. Since that point, 15-4 with a 2.06 ERA. Staff ace numbers. Overall now 15-14 with a 3.10 ERA. Pretty much solely responsible for my team's rise from last place to a 5-game division lead with eight left to play. Glad I stuck with him.

[Big Poppy]

Somehow made playoffs again. planning to lose 1-0. 2-0 and 4-1.

[Orion]

Both teams won their wild card round but did not promote, great seasons actually, pocket more clubhouse points and Experiment Team Chemistry is cooking. Wolves have 145k stashed, lots of good options for improvement!

[Sinnerman]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Yes, but people don't talk about it much. It's amazing how many players wake up and smell the coffee after the All-Star break.

What is the reversion model? I have a good guess but want to be sure. If you're hinting at a post All-Star collapse that happened to me last week.

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by Sinnerman

What is the reversion model? I have a good guess but want to be sure. If you're hinting at a post All-Star collapse that happened to me last week.

people rumor about a mid season recalc in order to hit the league totals, but i haven't seen any data and it's just theory. i just think people don't understand how probability and normal curves work more than anything

[Sinnerman]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

people rumor about a mid season recalc in order to hit the league totals, but i haven't seen any data and it's just theory. i just think people don't understand how probability and normal curves work more than anything

If the simulation is providing results that are not expected and the desire is to normalize them to a baseline (1967, 2025, etc.), changes to the simulation will have to occur. If there is a OOTP league with all batters being Babe Ruth and all pitchers being from little league, will the season's league stats still be normalized to a certain baseline. Or say every batter is an average left handed batter and every pitcher is a dominant lefty, will the batters be boosted and the pitchers nerfed to reach the expected results.

[Big Poppy]

Originally Posted by Sinnerman

If the simulation is providing results that are not expected and the desire is to normalize them to a baseline (1967, 2025, etc.), changes to the simulation will have to occur. If there is a OOTP league with all batters being Babe Ruth and all pitchers being from little league, will the season's league stats still be normalized to a certain baseline. Or say every batter is an average left handed batter and every pitcher is a dominant lefty, will the batters be boosted and the pitchers nerfed to reach the expected results.

No, just looking something akin to price action within standard deviation. outliers get faded, like all outliers.