This game is soooo unrealistic - Page 2

twins15 · 03-28-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbshaff
Just thought that this needs to be restated....don't post the names of the players if you are looking for feedback on the validity of a trade. Post the info that the AI looks at...actually post all the info except for the name of the player, including both teams' standings and direction. It is the only way to look at the trade in an objective way.

Quite frankly I think the best way to look at how the AI is performing is with fictional players. This totally eliminates our human bias.

I think that they are just talking about trades that really happened, not that happened in OOTP. So, you can't really say their ratings, because they don't really have ratings.

Dice · 03-28-2003, 10:44 PM

How about the White Soxs trading Sammy Sosa for George Bell in 1992.

And we still didn't win the Division that year.

Henry · 03-28-2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbshaff
Just thought that this needs to be restated....don't post the names of the players if you are looking for feedback on the validity of a trade. Post the info that the AI looks at...actually post all the info except for the name of the player, including both teams' standings and direction. It is the only way to look at the trade in an objective way.

Quite frankly I think the best way to look at how the AI is performing is with fictional players. This totally eliminates our human bias.

Exactly - exactly - exactly !!! The game only knows Sosa by his numbers. Compare his numbers with the other players numbers then compare that with each teams financial situation and player needs according to the coaches.

The biggest mistake everyone makes when complaining about trades is the "expectations" inbred based on the players names - and OOTP is not a "baseball statistics simulator" !! It is a "baseball environment simulator".

Each time this comes up, someone says give me the numbers - and every time - no one provides the numbers. Why? becasue if you do, you start to see that the trades make "mathematical" sense and the game doesn't really give a hoot whether the players name is Sammy Sosa or George Strickland....

Henry

tbshaff · 03-28-2003, 11:32 PM

although the human perspective is needed, it is more often the cause of a bad trade. sometimes you are right, other times you aren't.

MrWorkrate · 03-29-2003, 02:10 AM

Any trade that involves prospects for proven players is going to end up with two possible outcomes: either the trade is considered to be a great move by the proven player aquiring team, because the prospects fizzle out, or the trade is a horrible move by the proven player aquiring team, because the proven player ends up mediocre/leaving via free agency/not living up to expectations, while the prospects bloom.

Prospects are never guaranteed, no matter how much they're hyped. It may take several trips to the majors before they become ready, or they may never be ready at all. Sammy Sosa wasn't looking great when he was traded to the Cubs: averages of .233 and .203 in major league ball the previous two seasons, with a strikeout every 3.4 times to bat. Jay Buhner was batting .188 when he was traded to Seattle. Paul Konerko was batting .215. Randy Johnson was pulling a 6.67 ERA with a 1:1 BB/K ratio with Montreal. GMs are under pressure to win, so they do what they need to do in order to win today, and usually that means getting rid of something with possible great upside for something that's good today. It's like playing the stock market. If you buy a hundred dollars worth of stock, and it goes to $200, sell it now and make a nice amount of money, or keep it, and see if you can make more?

It's easy to rip on the trades where the prospects turned out great. But how many trades involving established players for prospects turned out way better for the team that got the established player? You never hear about those.

BasicGuy · 03-29-2003, 03:45 AM

MrWorkrate as some one above mentioned.....Chuck Knoblauch for Eric Milton, Cristian Guzman, and Brian Buchanan

I would say the Twins got a better deal...But at the time people we're upset with the trade..Chuck whinned his way to NY(And then forgot how to play 2B???)

MVPlaya · 03-29-2003, 03:59 AM

Yea I think you went a little to far on that.. this game is soooooooo unrealistic, it would be unrealistic if they know 100% exactly who will be good and who won't be in the future, this game isn't made by ms cleo..

BarryZito75 · 03-29-2003, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TwinMonster
Chuck Knoblauch for Eric Milton, Cristian Guzman, and Brian Buchanan. Oh wait. The Twins got the better end on that one....

Chuck Knoblauch was a large part of two Yankee World Series victories. I wouldn't say either team got the better of it. Guzman and Milton wouldn't have a spot on the current Yankees, either...

Erich Ingram · 03-29-2003, 01:25 PM

As for the Bagwell deal while it has turned out poorly overall, Bagwell at the time was 4th in line at 3b for the Red Sox on the depth chart. He hadn't hit for the power at the time and wasn't really considered a Premier prospect in Boston. Granted Boston is known for giving away their top prospects that come back to burn them in the long run, You know like their famous flops like Carl Pavano and Tony Armas jr for Pedro. But serioiusly looking at a trade 10 years later with 20/20 hindsight is not always a fair way to do it. You do have to look at all the situations. Boston acquiring Mike Boddicker from the Orioles, put them in the playoffs that year and gave them an excellent pitcher for a few years afterward, what did they give up well Curt Schilling and Brady Anderson.

Baltimore then made a great deal with Houston, to get Glenn Davis they traded 3 moderate prospects Pete Harnisch, Steve Finley and Curt Schilling. Now I am sure that Boston would love to have Curt Schilling back but Boddicker gave them what they were looking for at the time. Baltimore just made a bad trade.

Now with Curt there is one more trade that makes these two look even better though, because what did Houston get for Schilling when they sent him to Philly, well they got Jason Grimsley, think the Stros would like to have that one back.

Long term a lot of these trades look bad based on what the players end up doing, but others that look really bad when they are made end up not being so bad for teams in the long run. I think that the trades in the leagues here by the CPU are looked upon harshley because people are jaded by what they think of the players ability in real life. Remember the game doesn't always mimic real life. I find that the best way to judge the trade AI is based on fictional leagues as there is no player expectation bias based on the player's name.

tcblcommish · 03-29-2003, 05:20 PM

You guys are not looking back far enough...

The Babe for cash!!

I Am The Game · 03-29-2003, 10:14 PM

I agree with Rolen - stop ripping on the Bagwell for Anderson deal!

Besides, they did get Lowe and Varitek for Slocumb, so that helps ease the pain a bit.

But I don't think some of the people are understanding. The original poster was not complaining about the game being unrealistic. He was just looking for entertainment probably lol, that's what I got out of it. An entertaining thread. I mean, I'm sure we can all think of 4 or 5 trades off the top of our heads (except for that Dodger fan up there), but to see some of the worst trades in history (at least in hindsight) all in one place is interesting.

As someone noted there is only two outcomes for a prospects for players trade. Either it's a stupid deal or a great deal. Now, there are some cases of just really bad scouting (Deshields for Pedro...who would have thought Jody Reed - who chose not to resign with LA - would have such an effect on the game??), but more often then not it's just taking a crapshoot. Sometimes GMs can't wait for that Double-A Starting Pitcher to flourish, they need that Setup man NOW, therefore pulling the trigger.

billycola · 03-30-2003, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LivnLegend
Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields? No way!!

Now I'm gonna have the nightmares again...

rangers85 · 03-30-2003, 03:53 AM

Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines

Ugh

Imagine the Rangers if they still featured Sosa, just one more deadly punch in that lineup.

Although, at the time, Sosa wasn't really highly touted in the league. Considering Sosa's status then, it wasn't really a bad trade then, but in retrospect it was.

BamboXBini · 03-30-2003, 04:35 AM

Whats not saying a coach didnt help them in there newer teams? An example is Matt Clement. He was always a ok pitcher pitching for the Padres and Marlins, but once he came to Chicago and Larry Rothschild helped his delievery, hes been one of the top pitchers in the NL. Maybe in Boston, Bagwell didnt have a coach that pushed him to be the best he can, but maybe that coach was in Houston and got the best of Bagwell.

I Am The Game · 03-30-2003, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BamboXBini
Whats not saying a coach didnt help them in there newer teams? An example is Matt Clement. He was always a ok pitcher pitching for the Padres and Marlins, but once he came to Chicago and Larry Rothschild helped his delievery, hes been one of the top pitchers in the NL. Maybe in Boston, Bagwell didnt have a coach that pushed him to be the best he can, but maybe that coach was in Houston and got the best of Bagwell.

Well he's only been good one season, why don't you wait before you call him one of the top pitchers in the NL.

HolyCow98 · 03-30-2003, 03:29 PM

Must be a fan.

ctorg · 03-31-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbshaff
Just thought that this needs to be restated....don't post the names of the players if you are looking for feedback on the validity of a trade. Post the info that the AI looks at...actually post all the info except for the name of the player, including both teams' standings and direction. It is the only way to look at the trade in an objective way.

Quite frankly I think the best way to look at how the AI is performing is with fictional players. This totally eliminates our human bias.

Actually, the whole thing was intended as a joke, a way of pointing out that some of the things people complain about on here actually happen. If any of the things I mentioned in my initial post happened on OOTP instead (but not in real life), someone would probably complain. And I believe Kurtis's reply was equally sarcastic in that he was doing what everyone (myself included, big time) does in other threads when people mention real names.

To completely eliminate "bad" trades from the game would actually make the game less realistic. Yes, there are some things that need improving, and perhaps trading is one of them, but I was just trying to point out that it's not as bad as it might look.

Steve Kuffrey · 03-31-2003, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ctorg
Actually, the whole thing was intended as a joke, a way of pointing out that some of the things people complain about on here actually happen. If any of the things I mentioned in my initial post happened on OOTP instead (but not in real life), someone would probably complain. And I believe Kurtis's reply was equally sarcastic in that he was doing what everyone (myself included, big time) does in other threads when people mention real names.

To completely eliminate "bad" trades from the game would actually make the game less realistic. Yes, there are some things that need improving, and perhaps trading is one of them, but I was just trying to point out that it's not as bad as it might look.

Agreed, excellent original post and point. In order for a game such as this to be realistic there must be "some" bad choices, decisions, etc made by the computer. Again, there are areas that need to be tightened up and this is being done but to totally remove the "bad" as we see it would be a mistake.

03-28-2003, 11:32 PM	#24
tbshaff Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 57	although the human perspective is needed, it is more often the cause of a bad trade. sometimes you are right, other times you aren't. __________________ TBShaff

03-29-2003, 02:10 AM	#25
MrWorkrate All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,262	Any trade that involves prospects for proven players is going to end up with two possible outcomes: either the trade is considered to be a great move by the proven player aquiring team, because the prospects fizzle out, or the trade is a horrible move by the proven player aquiring team, because the proven player ends up mediocre/leaving via free agency/not living up to expectations, while the prospects bloom. Prospects are never guaranteed, no matter how much they're hyped. It may take several trips to the majors before they become ready, or they may never be ready at all. Sammy Sosa wasn't looking great when he was traded to the Cubs: averages of .233 and .203 in major league ball the previous two seasons, with a strikeout every 3.4 times to bat. Jay Buhner was batting .188 when he was traded to Seattle. Paul Konerko was batting .215. Randy Johnson was pulling a 6.67 ERA with a 1:1 BB/K ratio with Montreal. GMs are under pressure to win, so they do what they need to do in order to win today, and usually that means getting rid of something with possible great upside for something that's good today. It's like playing the stock market. If you buy a hundred dollars worth of stock, and it goes to $200, sell it now and make a nice amount of money, or keep it, and see if you can make more? It's easy to rip on the trades where the prospects turned out great. But how many trades involving established players for prospects turned out way better for the team that got the established player? You never hear about those. __________________ I used to come here a lot. Now, not so much.

03-29-2003, 01:25 PM	#29
Erich Ingram Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,201	As for the Bagwell deal while it has turned out poorly overall, Bagwell at the time was 4th in line at 3b for the Red Sox on the depth chart. He hadn't hit for the power at the time and wasn't really considered a Premier prospect in Boston. Granted Boston is known for giving away their top prospects that come back to burn them in the long run, You know like their famous flops like Carl Pavano and Tony Armas jr for Pedro. But serioiusly looking at a trade 10 years later with 20/20 hindsight is not always a fair way to do it. You do have to look at all the situations. Boston acquiring Mike Boddicker from the Orioles, put them in the playoffs that year and gave them an excellent pitcher for a few years afterward, what did they give up well Curt Schilling and Brady Anderson. Baltimore then made a great deal with Houston, to get Glenn Davis they traded 3 moderate prospects Pete Harnisch, Steve Finley and Curt Schilling. Now I am sure that Boston would love to have Curt Schilling back but Boddicker gave them what they were looking for at the time. Baltimore just made a bad trade. Now with Curt there is one more trade that makes these two look even better though, because what did Houston get for Schilling when they sent him to Philly, well they got Jason Grimsley, think the Stros would like to have that one back. Long term a lot of these trades look bad based on what the players end up doing, but others that look really bad when they are made end up not being so bad for teams in the long run. I think that the trades in the leagues here by the CPU are looked upon harshley because people are jaded by what they think of the players ability in real life. Remember the game doesn't always mimic real life. I find that the best way to judge the trade AI is based on fictional leagues as there is no player expectation bias based on the player's name. __________________ Erich Ingram (Rolen17) IOSBL San Diego Aztecs 2010, 2012,2013, 2014 World Series Champions Maelstrom Padres 2026 World Champions eMLB Washington Nationals

03-30-2003, 04:35 AM	#34
BamboXBini Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Crystal Lake, IL Posts: 47	Whats not saying a coach didnt help them in there newer teams? An example is Matt Clement. He was always a ok pitcher pitching for the Padres and Marlins, but once he came to Chicago and Larry Rothschild helped his delievery, hes been one of the top pitchers in the NL. Maybe in Boston, Bagwell didnt have a coach that pushed him to be the best he can, but maybe that coach was in Houston and got the best of Bagwell. __________________ Go Cubs

03-30-2003, 03:29 PM	#36
HolyCow98 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Douglasville, GA Posts: 2,735	Must be a fan. __________________ NPBL Enjoying its 60th season Georgia GM

03-28-2003, 10:44 PM	#22
Dice Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago, Il. Posts: 2	How about the White Soxs trading Sammy Sosa for George Bell in 1992. And we still didn't win the Division that year.

03-29-2003, 03:45 AM	#26
BasicGuy Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ND Posts: 478	MrWorkrate as some one above mentioned.....Chuck Knoblauch for Eric Milton, Cristian Guzman, and Brian Buchanan I would say the Twins got a better deal...But at the time people we're upset with the trade..Chuck whinned his way to NY(And then forgot how to play 2B???)

03-29-2003, 03:59 AM	#27
MVPlaya Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 46	Yea I think you went a little to far on that.. this game is soooooooo unrealistic, it would be unrealistic if they know 100% exactly who will be good and who won't be in the future, this game isn't made by ms cleo..

03-29-2003, 05:20 PM	#30
tcblcommish Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 3,439	You guys are not looking back far enough... The Babe for cash!!

03-29-2003, 10:14 PM	#31
I Am The Game All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Red Sox Nation Posts: 691	I agree with Rolen - stop ripping on the Bagwell for Anderson deal! Besides, they did get Lowe and Varitek for Slocumb, so that helps ease the pain a bit. But I don't think some of the people are understanding. The original poster was not complaining about the game being unrealistic. He was just looking for entertainment probably lol, that's what I got out of it. An entertaining thread. I mean, I'm sure we can all think of 4 or 5 trades off the top of our heads (except for that Dodger fan up there), but to see some of the worst trades in history (at least in hindsight) all in one place is interesting. As someone noted there is only two outcomes for a prospects for players trade. Either it's a stupid deal or a great deal. Now, there are some cases of just really bad scouting (Deshields for Pedro...who would have thought Jody Reed - who chose not to resign with LA - would have such an effect on the game??), but more often then not it's just taking a crapshoot. Sometimes GMs can't wait for that Double-A Starting Pitcher to flourish, they need that Setup man NOW, therefore pulling the trigger.

03-30-2003, 03:53 AM	#33
rangers85 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Fort Worth, TX...home of the mighty TCU Horned Frogs Posts: 909	Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines Ugh Imagine the Rangers if they still featured Sosa, just one more deadly punch in that lineup. Although, at the time, Sosa wasn't really highly touted in the league. Considering Sosa's status then, it wasn't really a bad trade then, but in retrospect it was.