The thread you should be reading, but aren't!

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by David Watts

So glad you linked that thread with Matt's explanation. It clearly shows where the misinformation came from.

What is the misinformation?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Scoman

What is the misinformation?

The idea that the game was taking the adjust/weaken thresholds and multiplying them by the number of recalc years used. So if one was using 200/50 for a 3 year recalc setup, the game was using 600/150, 1000/250 for 5 year recalc.

[LansdowneSt]

Misinformation implies intent. I don't think you mean that. And to assume the 200/50 was a "per year" value seems reasonable if everything before the just-released game looks to have been doing it that way. That's what my tests/screenshots imply anyway. The release notes on the matter were way too sparse for anyone to discern it had changed in OOTP23. I combed those notes too before I posted.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Misinformation implies intent. I don't think you mean that. And to assume the 200/50 was a "per year" value seems reasonable if everything before the just-released game looks to have been doing it that way. That's what my tests/screenshots imply anyway. The release notes on the matter were way too sparse for anyone to discern it had changed in OOTP23. I combed those notes too before I posted.

Sorry for using the wrong word. Maybe we need a list of friendly words that we can choose from going forward. I didn't say it was intentional. I was simply pointing out that your link clearly displayed why so many thought it worked a certain way. Heck, what was it, the first or second post after Matt made his that he was told that he was mistaken?

It's probably time to drop this altogether as it's water under the bridge now. I do know I'm not reviewing 25 on Steam like I usually do. At least not until OOTP26 or maybe even 27 comes out. Better safe than sorry.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Misinformation implies intent.

That is not true. “Disinformation” is deliberately misleading or wrong information, comprising the intentional subsets of both misinformation and malinformation; simple search of those three terms together will provide plentiful explanation and visualization.

So, I might say that your response above was an example ofmisinformation, but (I presume) not of disinformation.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

So glad you linked that thread with Matt's explanation. It clearly shows where the misinformation originated. Rain King, states in a post under Matts, the idea that the game adjusts the adjust/weaken settings according to recalc years used. If he didn't I or many others would have done the same thing. It's what we were led to believe.

This post by thehef jumped out at me.

"That's what I believe Garlon explained elsewhere, and that was the basis for my attempted explanation in the first reply above ... Both he and Matt are aware of this thread so rest assured that one of them will clear this up for us soon "

Yea, "clear this up for us soon." LOL. Over two years later it wasn't sorted out. And Matt is still saying in the recent thread he can't remember how it worked before. I'm not angry. I'm laughing. Some things are so ludicrous it's impossible for them to provoke anger.

[Brad K]

Why is a sample size of 200 acceptable for a single season but a sample size of 599 unacceptable for three seasons?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

hef, the only thing I think of it the obvious 100% scouting and I'd go 1-100 as it shows the most "to the user" granularity so it's not a rounding issue among the contestants.

Thanks for the tips. I always use 100% scouting but rarely pay attention to the actual ratings, just let it default to 20-80 (or whatever it is). But ya, 1-100 makes more sense!

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

Exactly my point. Seems critical information for historical leagues yet I've never seen a discussion, not even an annual "so what settings do use for ____?". Which suggests everyone is bored talking about it or there are a bunch of historical leagues owners are scratching their heads over...

Yes. Or, like me, they start reading about what settings to use and they just get confused at the apparent complexity of it all. Before I retired I thought "Well, I don't have the time or mental energy to devote to this. I'll just create another fictional league and have fun with that."

Now that I'm retired I find myself thinking "Well, I just don't feel like spending the time and mental energy to figure this out. Let the younger guys have at it. I'll just continue enjoying this wonderful game with my fictional leagues."

And of course I can enjoy historical leagues vicariously by reading the dynasty threads posted by others.

I remember waaaay back in OOTP5 I had a couple of historical leagues. But things were much simpler in those days. I downloaded a Lahman database file and just pointed the game at it in order to create a historical league.

And waaaay back around OOTP7 or 8 or 9 I created a league that started in the early 1900s. I did not play it very much because the jerseys weren't very interesting.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Antonin

Yes. Or, like me, they start reading about what settings to use and they just get confused at the apparent complexity of it all. Before I retired I thought "Well, I don't have the time or mental energy to devote to this. I'll just create another fictional league and have fun with that."

Now that I'm retired I find myself thinking "Well, I just don't feel like spending the time and mental energy to figure this out. Let the younger guys have at it. I'll just continue enjoying this wonderful game with my fictional leagues."

And of course I can enjoy historical leagues vicariously by reading the dynasty threads posted by others.

I remember waaaay back in OOTP5 I had a couple of historical leagues. But things were much simpler in those days. I downloaded a Lahman database file and just pointed the game at it in order to create a historical league.

And waaaay back around OOTP7 or 8 or 9 I created a league that started in the early 1900s. I did not play it very much because the jerseys weren't very interesting.

I think I'm reaching that point. My Phillies just outsprinted the Reds and Cubs in the last week to win the pennant. Heading into the annual post-season round robin Series (winners of the American, National and Federal). Then I have decisions re contracts, whether I think I can try a repeat next season with the same roster or let some big contracts go and maybe have a bit more for FAs. In light of this, fiddling around with db settings seems to detract.

Thing is though with the Fed I have a lot of RL MiLBs with OOTP MLB careers and would like to limit their contributions while at the same time not create a shortage of players. Would seem to require a balance and since this is a long term save I may be inclined to hack away at the A/W. But I find my lips moving when reading some of the posts "explaining" which causes me to back away.

[Pelican]

To the OP, I have experimented with the 1914 and 1915 Federal League seasons. It's a challenge, because OOTP essentially treats the FL like a AAA-level circuit, if such categories had existed in those years.

That said, I have had reasonable success using essentially default settings, but with development enabled and annual recalc off, duplicating the actual player and team performance. In other words, since MLB and FL teams don't play one another (in my sim and IRL), the AL and NL and FL spool out consistent with IRL.

The challenge comes in having FL teams sign players who had MLB records in 1914 and 1915. [As a kind of "house rule", I have painstakingly researched instances of players who were courted by the FL, negotiated and then pulled back, or even signed contracts and later repudiated them. In my sim, those guys show up on FL rosters.]. Or rookies like the Ruth fellow playing literally across the street from the Terrapins' new stadium (for the Orioles). If you check the ratings comparison choice (versus MLB or versus FL), there is an uptick for MLB guys going to the FL. In my experience, the performances have been realistic. Of course, I am playing with relatively hight TCR, so there have been significant variations, up and down.

What this approach (FL as AAA equivalent) lacks is financials. FL teams don't have budgets or balance sheets. That's a pretty glaring omission, since the FL teams struggled to compete, lost money, and eventually folded. (They were far more competitive on the field than at the box office, in most cases.)

A possible way around that is expansion. I have not tried this for the FL teams; but it worked out well for creating the Continental League in 1961, with eight teams. Expansion teams are MLB teams, so they have the full financial screens and attendant limitations. Far more realistic. For a "renegade" league, there would be no expansion draft; just raids on MLB players. And no trades between MLB and FL/CL, at least until a peace agreement.

But beware the "doctrine of unintended consequences". In my CL sim, I somehow caused a bunch of MLB stars, presumably those at the end of a contract, to become free agents. They were no longer bound by the reserve clause to their existing teams. This caused something of a free-for-all. ["Free' is a poor choice of words, since these contracts were huge for the era.]. In other words, I imposed the post-1975 landscape on 1961. My goal had been to give CL teams a chance to sign players from MLB. What happened is that Banks, Clemente, Mays changed teams, in the prime of their careers.

Back to the FL. There was a ton of player movement for most FL teams, in 1914 and 1915. I play without actual transactions and injuries on, and that calmed things down. Players who had some time on a FL roster were there for the year. (FL teams have reserve rosters, rather than a farm system...) Loss of dozens of players to the FL upset the AL and NL standings a bit. But I did not find any teams running out of players. Actually 1915 is easier to play than 1914, because OOTP upgrades the minor leagues starting in 1915.

Hint: There are plenty of PCL players who would look good in a FL jersey. My guess is that the early PCL had players who were not ready or able in 1915 to journey across the country, on the hope of playing in MLB. Another project is to develop the PCL into a major league, after WWI, and again (or instead) after WWII.

And finally, if you find yourself short on players, disable the color line. This would have been radical in 1914 or 1915; but so what? Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Negro League players available. (In fact, there were no Negro Leagues yet.) But there were stars, and this is another cool "what if?" scenario. Also a way for a renegade league to become viable.

I've been neglectful in reporting on these projects. Once I get some time, I will post updates in the historical thread area, for what it's worth.

[thehef]

Pelican: A fascinating post immediately above that hope to return to asap. But one thing jumped out:

Originally Posted by Pelican

The challenge comes in having FL teams sign players who had MLB records in 1914 and 1915. [As a kind of "house rule", I have painstakingly researched instances of players who were courted by the FL, negotiated and then pulled back, or even signed contracts and later repudiated them. In my sim, those guys show up on FL rosters.].

I think you are saying that you are manually - at your own whims - placing these guys on FL rosters, and not that they are showing up on FL rosters because OOTP is placing them there (which would suggest some issues with the player database). Correct?

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Pelican

To the OP, I have experimented with the 1914 and 1915 Federal League seasons. It's a challenge, because OOTP essentially treats the FL like a AAA-level circuit, if such categories had existed in those years.

That said, I have had reasonable success using essentially default settings, but with development enabled and annual recalc off, duplicating the actual player and team performance. In other words, since MLB and FL teams don't play one another (in my sim and IRL), the AL and NL and FL spool out consistent with IRL.

The challenge comes in having FL teams sign players who had MLB records in 1914 and 1915. [As a kind of "house rule", I have painstakingly researched instances of players who were courted by the FL, negotiated and then pulled back, or even signed contracts and later repudiated them. In my sim, those guys show up on FL rosters.]. Or rookies like the Ruth fellow playing literally across the street from the Terrapins' new stadium (for the Orioles). If you check the ratings comparison choice (versus MLB or versus FL), there is an uptick for MLB guys going to the FL. In my experience, the performances have been realistic. Of course, I am playing with relatively hight TCR, so there have been significant variations, up and down.

What this approach (FL as AAA equivalent) lacks is financials. FL teams don't have budgets or balance sheets. That's a pretty glaring omission, since the FL teams struggled to compete, lost money, and eventually folded. (They were far more competitive on the field than at the box office, in most cases.)

A possible way around that is expansion. I have not tried this for the FL teams; but it worked out well for creating the Continental League in 1961, with eight teams. Expansion teams are MLB teams, so they have the full financial screens and attendant limitations. Far more realistic. For a "renegade" league, there would be no expansion draft; just raids on MLB players. And no trades between MLB and FL/CL, at least until a peace agreement.

But beware the "doctrine of unintended consequences". In my CL sim, I somehow caused a bunch of MLB stars, presumably those at the end of a contract, to become free agents. They were no longer bound by the reserve clause to their existing teams. This caused something of a free-for-all. ["Free' is a poor choice of words, since these contracts were huge for the era.]. In other words, I imposed the post-1975 landscape on 1961. My goal had been to give CL teams a chance to sign players from MLB. What happened is that Banks, Clemente, Mays changed teams, in the prime of their careers.

Back to the FL. There was a ton of player movement for most FL teams, in 1914 and 1915. I play without actual transactions and injuries on, and that calmed things down. Players who had some time on a FL roster were there for the year. (FL teams have reserve rosters, rather than a farm system...) Loss of dozens of players to the FL upset the AL and NL standings a bit. But I did not find any teams running out of players. Actually 1915 is easier to play than 1914, because OOTP upgrades the minor leagues starting in 1915.

Hint: There are plenty of PCL players who would look good in a FL jersey. My guess is that the early PCL had players who were not ready or able in 1915 to journey across the country, on the hope of playing in MLB. Another project is to develop the PCL into a major league, after WWI, and again (or instead) after WWII.

And finally, if you find yourself short on players, disable the color line. This would have been radical in 1914 or 1915; but so what? Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Negro League players available. (In fact, there were no Negro Leagues yet.) But there were stars, and this is another cool "what if?" scenario. Also a way for a renegade league to become viable.

I've been neglectful in reporting on these projects. Once I get some time, I will post updates in the historical thread area, for what it's worth.

Ditto with getting to this but later.

By end of my leagues' 1960s (am now in 1924) I also seek to add to National, American, Federal with say a Continental (makes sense). From 24 to 32 MLB teams. Plus some minors.

So from what I was able to glean the above post will bear returning to. But currently am saturated.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by thehef

OK so I've ID'd 6 guys from the 1930 PCL who all hit over .350. The AB's for each guy are 2, 12, 124, 239, 310, and 721.

I'm going to do 1-year recalc and I'm thinking of these combinations of Adj/Wkn for each test:

300/150
200/100
120/20
100/0
0/0

And then I'll see how ratings compare. I would think would give insight on if/how Adj/Wkn settings apply to minor leagues...

Anyone have any suggestions on how I might tweak this testing?

Thanks in advance.

Finally got around to completing these tests... Made a few changes in the guys (AB & H #'s) that I selected. They were:

AB's / Hits
721 / 257
310 / 139
239 / 84
124 / 46
13 / 5 (pitcher)
13 / 4
9 / 3
9 / 0
4 / 2 (pitcher)

The adjust/weaken test thresholds were the same ones I suggested earlier, now in bold above.

Initial observations:

1. Adj/Wkn settings are definitely applying to minor leagues, in addition to the majors.

2. There don't appear to be many differences - often none - in batting splits ratings... One one hand, I'm not surprised because minor league splits from "back in the day" (my test is for 1930) don't exist. That said, I had expected OOTP to apply a little randomization to this. I guess it's an either/or proposition, and since I chose Use Historical Splits, well there ya go (making a note for a future suggestion: allow OOTP to "Use Historical Splits when Available, else Randomize Realistic Settings.")

3. For the higher thresholds, the pitcher who was 5-for-13 had significantly lower ratings than the non-pitcher who was 4-for-13. Not until I tested the 100-0 and 0-0 (adjust-weaken) settings did the pitcher's ratings approach the non-pitcher's ratings. (Hindsight: I should have also selected two pitchers with 100+ AB's - one a good hitter and one not-so-good - to also test... maybe I will go back and do that at some point...)

Some details:
I started with 300-150. When I then went to 200-100, the only real difference was the guy with 124 AB's. His ratings were slightly higher compared to his 300-150 #'s. Made perfect sense.

I then went to 120-20. The 124-AB guy had higher ratings, especially contact & babip... The 13 AB non-pitcher had some changes in ratings; some higher, some lower... The 0-for-9 guy's #'s were slightly down, with avoid K's a bit more lower... The 3-for-9 guy's #'s were all slightly lower...

Next was 100-0. The higher-AB guys had lower power #'s. Initially I was wondering why this was but I quickly came to the conclusion that with fewer players adjusted overall, and no players weakened, this would mean higher power ratings all over the league; thus, the guys with higher AB's would need lower power ratings so the HR distribution across the league still works out... Other than that, the 124 AB guy had slightly higher #'s (except power), and all the under-20 AB guys had higher numbers, esp. contact, babip, and avoid k's...

Finally, 0-0 (no adjust, no weaken). This was a mixed bag. The 124, 239 and 721 AB guys saw no significant change from the 100-0 settings. The 310 AB guy saw his power go back up to match those of all other adj/wkn settings except for the 100-0 settings (IOW, his power numbers were the same with all settings, except for 100-0, where they were a bit lower)... The low-AB guys are where the mixed bag was, with some guys having both higher and lower numbers; way too many variances to list here but nothing shocking... My notes for those guys were:
- babip higher; avoid k's lower… (2-for-4 guy)
- slightly higher contact, higher babip, lower avoid k's, slightly higher power (5-13 pitcher)
- higher contact & babip, lower avoid k's & power (4-13)
- contact, babip, avoid k'slower, gap, power, eye = some up, some down, some same (0-9)
- some #'s higher, some lower (3-9)

Note that my higher and lower indications above are in comparison to the 100-0 adj/wkn ratings... And I should note that the ratings I tracked were Contact, BABIP, Avoid K's, Gap, Power, and Eye. For each of those I included current, potential, vs L, vs R...

So for a high-level look at the results, there you have it. If anybody wants to take a deeper dive, I'm happy to provide my really ugly spreadsheet (it's orderly, but ugly from the perspective of just all of the numbers...).

[LansdowneSt]

Was double weight current year off, hef? It can sometimes default on even on 1-year recalc.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Was double weight current year off, hef? It can sometimes default on even on 1-year recalc.

These tests were all 1-year recalc. I left double-weight checked, although w 1-yr I don't think it matters.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by thehef

Hindsight: I should have also selected two pitchers with 100+ AB's - one a good hitter and one not-so-good - to also test... maybe I will go back and do that at some point...

Curiosity got the best of me so I did a quick test of two good-hitting pitchers from 1930: Red Ruffing of the Yankees (.374, 37 hits in 99 AB's, 4 HR's) and Frank Shellenback of the PCL Hollywood Stars (.279, 36 hits in 129 AB's, 4 HR's). Unfortunately, regardless of adj/wkn settings, they import as anywhere from poor-to-mediocre-at-best hitters.

This is concerning because both of these guys were used almost 20 times in 1930 as pinch-hitters. Not having them available (well, available as the good-hitters they were) is a break from the realism that we're all generally hoping for... I'm pretty sure from what Markus wrote on this topic like 3-4 years ago - "Pitcher ratings are adjusted to sample size, so a pitcher with 100 AB in a season, even if he performed good, will be rated lower than a position player with 600 AB and the same stats" - that this is by design. However, I'm not sure the intent is for these guys to be as poor hitters as they are... I mean, they are not good hitters at all if not adjusted/weakened, but once they fall below the thresholds, they are bad. And that's not realistic.

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

Do you know what they're talking about? I guarantee you don't. No one does which is why so many historical leagues get it wrong year after year.


https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=352747

Would be nice if a pre-set option of this would be available upon purchasing the game "Out The Box" instead of one trying to figure out the best option to get the best results. But have a check box option to choose it or not. Just saying!!!!

Bunktown Ballers

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

Do you know what they're talking about? I guarantee you don't. No one does which is why so many historical leagues get it wrong year after year.


https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=352747

Would be nice if a pre-set option of this would be available upon purchasing the game "Out The Box" instead of one trying to figure out the best option to get the best results. But have a check box option to choose it or not. Just saying!!!!

Bunktown Ballers

[jcard]

Originally Posted by thehef

Curiosity got the best of me so I did a quick test of two good-hitting pitchers from 1930: Red Ruffing of the Yankees (.374, 37 hits in 99 AB's, 4 HR's) and Frank Shellenback of the PCL Hollywood Stars (.279, 36 hits in 129 AB's, 4 HR's). Unfortunately, regardless of adj/wkn settings, they import as anywhere from poor-to-mediocre-at-best hitters.

This is concerning because both of these guys were used almost 20 times in 1930 as pinch-hitters. Not having them available (well, available as the good-hitters they were) is a break from the realism that we're all generally hoping for... I'm pretty sure from what Markus wrote on this topic like 3-4 years ago - "Pitcher ratings are adjusted to sample size, so a pitcher with 100 AB in a season, even if he performed good, will be rated lower than a position player with 600 AB and the same stats" - that this is by design. However, I'm not sure the intent is for these guys to be as poor hitters as they are... I mean, they are not good hitters at all if not adjusted/weakened, but once they fall below the thresholds, they are bad. And that's not realistic.

Really, broad realism and one-year recalc via blunt algorithm are basically an incompatible ends / means pairing. There are lots of similar problems. For example: a player who was an All-Star in years X-2, X-1, X+1, and X+2, but got only 100 ABs in year X due to injury is treated no differently for that year than some lifetime minor leaguer who got called up for the final month and feasted on September pitching (including a lot of pitchers who he had just spent five months batting against in AAA, though know these same matchups are given the frisson of “MLB-quality”). Similarly, the 4x multiplier for starter thresholds (vs reliever thresholds) makes modern seasons virtually impossible in terms of having enough decent starters without permitting a number of small sample size relief heroes.