Any way to fix standings

[BaseballMan]

I posted a problem i had with standings before but now i have another example.
Shouldn't Baltimore be in first?
Its the same situation with the Phillies and yet they are in 1st.
So whats different?
Why is Brooklyn below Louisville if they've won 1 more game and the losses are the same?
Is there an option to go by wins or winning pctg?
The game doesn't seem to be consistent in how the standings are made.
Or maybe i'm missing something.

[Le Grande Orange]

Those standings are messed up. Ordering by winning percentage, it should like this:

Baltimore    88  48  .647   —
New York     88  50  .638   1
Chicago      73  63  .537  15
Cleveland    70  62  .530  16
Philadelphia 71  63  .530  16
Pittsburgh   71  64  .526  16½
Cincinnati   67  66  .504  19½
Boston       62  73  .459  25½
Brooklyn     59  77  .434  29
Lousiville   58  77  .430  29½
Washington   55  80  .407  32½
St. Louis    46  85  .351  39½

FULLER PERCENTAGE
Cleveland    .53030
Philadelphia .52985

[BaseballMan]

Could it be a problem with using as played schedules?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Could it be a problem with using as played schedules?

I was wondering that. But offhand I can't see what that would have to do with ordering the standings.

[NoOne]

there's only a few ways to calculate it... they aren't even using 1/2 difference of wins and losses. not sure how it's coming to this conclusion. they have different GP, i bet it is tied to that. it can't happen when it matters, most likely.

looks like all the other "games back" are one off. so it knows the best record over 'here', but it's calculating games back from the 2nd place team. neat.

[BaseballMan]

I am using custom playoffs with 1 vs 2.

[Matt Arnold]

It's a little weird. All that I can think of how it could get that way is that we first sort teams by their "regular" standings, ignoring tiebreaker games, first, so if your "games per team" number is way off, then that can screw things up. So if you had that set to, say, 132, then internally the first sort is the standings as of game 132 for each team, and any games after that are only included as "tiebreakers".

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

It's a little weird. All that I can think of how it could get that way is that we first sort teams by their "regular" standings, ignoring tiebreaker games, first, so if your "games per team" number is way off, then that can screw things up. So if you had that set to, say, 132, then internally the first sort is the standings as of game 132 for each team, and any games after that are only included as "tiebreakers".

Yeah, that might have something to do with it.

Looking more closely, it's the 1897 NL season. The original schedule that year called for 132 games. But based on the games played from the standings shown in the first post, the as played schedule BaseballMan used included the tie games, which means every club in his recreation is playing more games than they should based on the original real-life schedule. (If no games ended in a tie that season, then all real-life clubs would have finished with 132 games played. But every NL club in 1897 had tie games, ranging from one for Cleveland to seven for the New York Giants, with the number of games played by clubs ranging from 132 to 138.)

Now, that said, OOTP should only order the standings by winning percentage, regardless of games played schedule settings.

Unless, that is, other ordering options, such as games behind or wins, get added as options in a future version.