After 13 seasons 35 HRs is the record

[HalNewhouser]

I am playing in a league where it has random players from all eras. I started in 1921 & am now in 1934, but the best single season player home run total is just 35 home runs.

The best power guys in my league have 65 power, but it still seems like the power is low. I would like to see more home runs, but I don't want to mess around with the settings too much & throw all of the stats off.

Has anyone else had this problem & if so how did you fix it?

Thanks

[scott1964]

In real life, the year 1934 saw the leader hit 35 HR

Yearly League Leaders &amp Records for Home Runs | Baseball-Reference.com

[HalNewhouser]

This is true, but Ruth hit 60 in 1927. In 13 years just one player hit 35 home runs in a single season.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by HalNewhouser

This is true, but Ruth hit 60 in 1927. In 13 years just one player hit 35 home runs in a single season.

Ruth was a massive outlier. He was outhomering entire teams at one point.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by HalNewhouser

I am playing in a league where it has random players from all eras. I started in 1921 & am now in 1934, but the best single season player home run total is just 35 home runs.

The best power guys in my league have 65 power, but it still seems like the power is low. I would like to see more home runs, but I don't want to mess around with the settings too much & throw the all of the stats off.

Has anyone else had this problem & if so how did you fix it?

Thanks

Who hit the 35 and in what year? Who were the leaders by season?

[majesty95]

The game doesn't handle outliers well. It will often reduce the outliers closer to the mean. Sometimes, you see the opposite and see several players post similar outlier seasons that never did in real life. That's a part of the game I wish it re-created better.

[bwburke94]

Even excluding Ruth, there were 24 player-seasons in real life with 36+ homers. Something is wrong here.

[David Watts]

Are teams hitting close to the same amount of home runs per season as they did in real life. How about league totals. Wondering if home runs are being spread out over a wider number of players than they were in real life?

[Reed]

Also, are you by chance playing with DH? That would spread the HRs around. That does seem a little odd to have no player over 35 HR. In OOTP 16 I had a few hit 40+ and Ruth had about 65 but maybe I was lucky. I guess the main thing would be to check your leagues total HRs vs real life.

[David Watts]

My last random debut with 16 started in 1946 and went forward. Want to say Vlad Guerrero hit 59 in 61 and then Cecil Fielder hit 60 in 1977. Strange thing for me was playing 50+ years and never having a guy reach 500 home runs. I was using high realistic for injuries, so that might have been why.

[majesty95]

Yeah, I would check the league totals. If the totals are the same, it just means the home runs are being spread around more which is the likely culprit.

[NoOne]

definitely look into all the settings and such... who knows?

i think modern mlb 2015 was 4400-4600 HR in the league total?? load up a different year and compare totals if you want to know if they are low-balling you compared to what you want.

the steroid era really exagerrated people's perceptions. look up how long between 50HR seasons when Cecil Fielder did it in the early 90-92ish ... exact year is escaping me. it was a very long time.

anecdotal stuff is not proof. talking about one player or a specific year won't help much. but cecil and the next example might shift the range of expectations a bit... in a very loose way.

with that said, lol..... check out hank aaron... 755hr but never hit more than 47. only hit 40 or more a handful of times out of 22-23 years or so -- way more than most. it doesn't prove anything, but it shows that one of the greatest hr hitters of all time only once was wthing a few hr of 50 for a season.

In one year of babe ruth's career, didn't he hit more hr than A) hist entire team, or B) the entire AL? i can't remember the tidbit completely.

i do think players are a bit stronger now, in addition to equipment changes. "traditional" thought held back on serious weight training for decades especially for pitchers... not so much anymore. people wised up to the benefits. but, they also swing at EVERYTHING now.... lol it's like watching little leaguers out there having a fit at the plate sometimes.

for most of that time average height has increased up until the last decade or two (thank processed foods for that)... so players are mostly bigger and stronger than the first half of 1900's.

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Yeah, I would check the league totals. If the totals are the same, it just means the home runs are being spread around more which is the likely culprit.

^^This^^

Player Ratings don't create statistics, League Modifiers do, Player ratings just distribute them. So your Homers should be in line with whatever your League Stat Modifiers are and I'm willing to bet that while you don't have a lot of players with really High Power ratings, you have many more with above average ratings which would distribute the league Homers more evenly across the league.

It isn't about how many homers any one player hits in any given season, it's how many does your league hit as a whole? That is the only true way to know if your Homers are being produced correctly by your files.And playing random Debut can have a profound impact on the Power Rating Distribution

[HalNewhouser]

I am now in 1936 & the league totals in home runs were actually higher than that the real 1936 produced, but they seem to be more spread around.

My league had 1510 HR, .286 BA, 4.82 ERA
The real 1936 had 1364 HR, .284 BA, 4.52 ERA

For my 1936 here were the top 5 for HR:
Dwight Evans 34
Jack Clark 32
Mo Vaughn 32
Fred McGriff 27
Garret Anderson 27

[sprague]

Originally Posted by HalNewhouser

I am now in 1936 & the league totals in home runs were actually higher than that the real 1936 produced, but they seem to be more spread around.

My league had 1510 HR, .286 BA, 4.82 ERA
The real 1936 had 1364 HR, .284 BA, 4.52 ERA

For my 1936 here were the top 5 for HR:
Dwight Evans 34
Jack Clark 32
Mo Vaughn 32
Fred McGriff 27
Garret Anderson 27

Right your issue is tying random debut to the 1930's.
The game generates stats based on the league modifiers, in this case using 1936 in your game when home runs were rather low by modern standards. In a real historical game there were few guys hitting home runs, so their is more of a chance Jimmy Foxx, Dimmagio, Greenberg will get the homers available because their are few others to hit them.'

With something like a random debut, even fictional for that matter, there will be far more better rated home run hitters than existed at taht time, but the game is still looking to put in only 1936 amount of homers.

Your choices are know it and be ok with it, or mentally let go of "1936" and made the modifiers more modern-like, and they you will see what you would think of as more likely numbers for the players

[Reed]

Yes, you have several power hitters spreading out the HRs. If the league had only one power hitter, their HR total would probably be very high.

[Painmantle]

Lets use 1921 as an example, there were 477 Homers hit in 1921 and Babe Ruth Hit 12% of them (59) Make a random debut league and Ralph Kiner, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Jimmy Foxx Join the Mix, no one hit's 50 Homers, it is much more likely that they all hit 20-25

[MizzouRah]

Glad the OP started this thread.. I'm in year 2021 and I've noticed a power drop as well. Checked my LT's and they were set to something other than 2015 which is what I started with in OOTP 16 - not sure how they changed?

Anyway, I went back and picked 2015 and hopefully with auto modifiers checked, next season will be back to normal.

[italyprof]

Originally Posted by sprague

Right your issue is tying random debut to the 1930's.
The game generates stats based on the league modifiers, in this case using 1936 in your game when home runs were rather low by modern standards. In a real historical game there were few guys hitting home runs, so their is more of a chance Jimmy Foxx, Dimmagio, Greenberg will get the homers available because their are few others to hit them.'

With something like a random debut, even fictional for that matter, there will be far more better rated home run hitters than existed at taht time, but the game is still looking to put in only 1936 amount of homers.

Your choices are know it and be ok with it, or mentally let go of "1936" and made the modifiers more modern-like, and they you will see what you would think of as more likely numbers for the players

I think Sprague is right. I remember Bill James pointing out that in the 1920s and 1930s teams tended to have 1, maybe two guys who could hit home runs, and otherwise some people who got on base. So RBI totals were very high for individuals and those who hit home runs hit a lot more than everyone else did. There really were not teams with a bunch of guys hitting 20-30 homers. Even the 1927 Yankees - if I recall, had Ruth 60, Gehrig 47 and then Lazzeri at 18 and Meusel at 8. That was the power. So with the same number of homers in a year spread over a different population of players from all eras, some of whom need to hit some home runs, you are getting what is actually kind of an interesting effect.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by italyprof

I think Sprague is right. I remember Bill James pointing out that in the 1920s and 1930s teams tended to have 1, maybe two guys who could hit home runs, and otherwise some people who got on base. So RBI totals were very high for individuals and those who hit home runs hit a lot more than everyone else did. There really were not teams with a bunch of guys hitting 20-30 homers. Even the 1927 Yankees - if I recall, had Ruth 60, Gehrig 47 and then Lazzeri at 18 and Meusel at 8. That was the power. So with the same number of homers in a year spread over a different population of players from all eras, some of whom need to hit some home runs, you are getting what is actually kind of an interesting effect.

Yeah, basically this. Nowadays entire lineups from top to bottom have guys on them who can hit one out but in the early 20s especially you still had a ton of players who continued to live by the mantra of "hit 'em where they ain't" instead of swinging for the fences like Ruth. Ruth didn't just outhit entire *teams*, which is crazy enough in and of itself, in 1920 he out-HRed half of the entire National League put together.

If you plop historical players into that era, you're not going to see the same kind of spread. We live in an era where an average major leaguer might hit 15 HRs or so in a full season and where a superstar might get 50. In the 20s, those numbers were more like 5-10 and 50 or 60. In an extreme sense, if your HR hitter is 3 times better than average at socking HRs, that might account to 45 HRs in a modern context but only 20 to 30 in a 1920s context. Yes, Ruth was that much of an outlier.