SB's significantly too high in simmed games in 6.03... - Page 2

jazzrack · 07-09-2004, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronweiser

listen, i'm sorry if i'm in the wrong area, but i just bought this version about two days ago, i love it, but is there an instructional manual, that can be printed from the game or at least downloaded from a sight. I seem to be wasting a lot of time just trying to figure out menus, and realizing after the fact about lost players on waivers, that sort of thing

there is no OOTP6 manual yet, if you read the OOTP5 manual it will answer the basics

edrooney · 07-09-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronweiser

listen, i'm sorry if i'm in the wrong area, but i just bought this version about two days ago, i love it, but is there an instructional manual, that can be printed from the game or at least downloaded from a sight. I seem to be wasting a lot of time just trying to figure out menus, and realizing after the fact about lost players on waivers, that sort of thing

As above there is no manual, yet. I'm a relative newbie to OOTP, version 6 being my first version. I found that the easiest and most enjoyable way to learn how to play this game is to look in these boards.

The FAQ section is very useful. Also, there have been some excellent explanations of service time and waivers to prevent you losing your players. These primers are at the top of this board.

Finally, if you can't find an answer to your question, simply post your question. You can be guaranteed to get a prompt and (usually) helpful response.

CBL-Commish · 07-09-2004, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matter2003

1) Still getting too many AB's during the season...usually like 1000-1500 too many...dropping the AB number doesn't seem to fix anything....

Possible reasons why there are too many at bats:

1) Offensive levels are much higher than what you consider "normal". This is the single biggest reason your league would have more at bats than today's MLB.

2) I guess you could get more ABs with ridiculously low scoring levels, which would lead to many more very low scoring games, and then many, many more extra-inning games.

3) Your walk totals are very low. This would tend to lead to more official at bats.

4) You have a different number of teams than whatever your normal case is.

5) Your schedule length is different from the number of teams in your normal case.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the league totals are just set up as ratios, i.e. doubles per at bat. You could divide all of your numbers by, say, two, and your league results would stay the same. Changing the number of at bats doesn't change the number of at bats your league will have... it's just a reference for the number of hits, doubles, homers, etc it'll have.

Matter2003 · 07-09-2004, 11:59 PM

Well, the problem is that all the other stats are in line, just the AB's are too high...I am simming sesaons with standard leagues and schedules, and comparing them to the 2003 MLB totals...For instance, in MLB 2003, there were 166,737 AB's. In my simmed league, with all other stats in line, there were 168,790, over 2,000 more AB's. The league batting averages were almost identical(MLB was .26423, simmed was .26402), and all other categories were virtually identical to their MLB counterparts except the number of AB's. The only other thing that could be low is the number of HBP, but it is hard to get a total of this because of the extremely weak Team Totals sections in OOTP that doesn't display this(one of the biggest drawbacks, IMHO).

I guess I will have to break down and look at each team individually and see if this is what is causing the discrepency. Changing the AB's seems to have no effect other than causing the other ratings to need to be changed as well. With any number of AB's, and the league average of .264 there are always about 1500-2000 more AB's than there should be.

Matter2003

jmm8356 · 07-10-2004, 12:19 AM

2053 extra ABs over 166,737 is only 1.2% above nominal. Are you really trying to tune the engine finer than that?

Akwebby · 07-10-2004, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

Yeah, stolen bases make sense in a pitching-dominated environment, not so in a hitting environment. Preaching "small ball" is all well and good, but it just doesn't make mathematical sense today, given the high-scoring era.

Any team that can't play small ball when they need to will never win a WS championship. You get that that game winning single in the 7th game of the WS by bunting the guy into scoring position unless he starts in scoring position which in most cases he won't. Small ball wins games, it doesn't always make the fan highlight reel though, that is the bottom line.

Dan Theman · 07-10-2004, 02:30 AM

Changing the "AB" number under league totals will NOT directly increase or decrease actual AB's throughout the season. It merely effects the chances of other things happening, which could then have a secondary impact upon AB's.

SB's are a highly individualized thing when it comes to preferences. In my playing days (from little league and on ...), I stole a grand total of two bases. Both were delayed steals - hey, I was a pitcher, cut me some slack! Anyway, some people loved them, others didn't. This game does give some ways to cut them down or increase them - it's not perfect, but after running some test leagues, it should give you results that you'll like. Trial and error; that's the best way to go.

- Dan

moore4807 · 07-10-2004, 09:47 AM

I thought the hit percentage had something to do with AB's too....
I have to keep adjusting it downward every time I start a new career, using 1998 (last expansion year) as the starting time - McGwire keeps belting over 100 HRs per year for 2000 & 2001 - no matter who he plays for. I lowered the HR's and BA to compensate for it (seems to work - McGwire and Sosa have 50-60 Hrs in those years now). Any suggestions are appreciated - but it seemed to tame the Holy Homers!!!!

Dan Theman · 07-10-2004, 01:06 PM

"Holy Homers" - I like it

. Unfortunately, especially when it comes to roster sets, trial and error is the only way to go. Raising homers in league totals will lower them in your actual game (it changes the ratings spread), but there isn't any "best set" of league totals because the ratings are all subjective and it's a dynamic mix between the two.

Anytime anybody sets up a league, I ALWAYS recommend running some trial seasons. Also, most imported rosters are balanced for 10-round drafts. If you do any more or any less, this will have an impact on your leagues overall ratings in the future (more rounds = more talented players = fewer scrubs = higher average ratings, and the opposite for fewer rounds).

In the end, just go with what feels/looks good to you. The Elias Sports Bureau, Bill James, and Sabermetric gurus aren't about to come banging n your door with a "cease and desist" letter

PSUColonel · 07-10-2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Theman

"Holy Homers" - I like it

. Unfortunately, especially when it comes to roster sets, trial and error is the only way to go. Raising homers in league totals will lower them in your actual game (it changes the ratings spread), but there isn't any "best set" of league totals because the ratings are all subjective and it's a dynamic mix between the two.

Anytime anybody sets up a league, I ALWAYS recommend running some trial seasons. Also, most imported rosters are balanced for 10-round drafts. If you do any more or any less, this will have an impact on your leagues overall ratings in the future (more rounds = more talented players = fewer scrubs = higher average ratings, and the opposite for fewer rounds).

In the end, just go with what feels/looks good to you. The Elias Sports Bureau, Bill James, and Sabermetric gurus aren't about to come banging n your door with a "cease and desist" letter

Just a quick poll- who feels notoften may be a better compromise over seldom?

Also- was there ever any consensus on what player development numbers should look like? default or should the player creation numbers be modified?

SSG Troyer · 07-10-2004, 02:21 PM

There will probably never be a consensus, because everyone is different ... we all have different ideas on what is "right."

Getting too many scrubs? Then increase the creation modifiers. Too many stars? Decrease them. It really is a personal thing. One of the reasons for simming a bunch of seasons prior to starting a fictional league, besides giving the league a history, is to adjust the league totals, creation and aging modiers, and anything else to what feels "right" to you.

The AB league totals will not change the ABs in your league. They will only change the base on which everything else is calculated. Raising the AB total would have the same effect as lowering every other number in the frame by a smaller percentage (thus raising your played/simmed numbers), and vice versa.

Matter2003 · 07-11-2004, 02:22 AM

seldom gives more realistic SB numbers for recent years...not often is almost a cross between the 1980's and now....

matter2003

PSUColonel · 07-11-2004, 02:53 AM

Matter- while I agree with your assesment, it seems when managing games that stealing is almost non-existent under seldom, and therefore HOLD RUNNER almost loses it's purpose. It's almost as though you don't really need to even worry about the guy on first- therefore pitchers with a low HOLD RUNNER rating aren't really penalized.

Matter2003 · 07-11-2004, 04:08 AM

Actually I stand corrected on my last post...

2003 MLB SB totals were 2573 SB's and 1132 CS's

With Stealing set to Seldom, SB's only totalled 1475...nearly 1,000 less than what they should have been...

It appears that not often is the correct setting, but it may even be normal...will do some more simming to see...

Matter2003

PSUColonel · 07-11-2004, 04:36 AM

I could be wrong here, but it SEEMS as though when using not often, teams are more prudent. In other words, they will be less likely to try to run against a catcher with a good arm- however they'll attempt to run all over a team with Mike Piazza behind the plate.

Anonymous Ghost · 07-11-2004, 04:52 AM

Are you using Home Field advantage? If you don't, then the game won't properly account for the home team enjoying a higher winning percentage at homes. Consequently, more bottom-of-the-ninths will be played out, thereby resulting in the higher AB totals.

Big Train · 07-11-2004, 05:02 PM

I miss the 80s game. I know that walks and homers are logically more valuable and efficient. than "small ball" in today's game but strictly speaking from an excitment standpoint as a fan I would much rather see a guy bunt for a hit, steal second and 3rd and score on a shallow sac fly rather than 2 guys work a walk taking 10 minutes each and then some bulked up middle infielder Mark Bellhorn type hit a homer. Efficiency doesn't always equal excitement.

I totally agree that the 80s are a totally different style of play than now and should have their own era. Why don't you just go in and edit the era settings so teams steal less or more though? You can customize each era the way you want and don't have to keep the same settings throughout the era.

Anonymous Ghost · 07-11-2004, 08:56 PM

Yeah, I for one agree with making 1980-1992 and 1993-present distinct eras.

07-10-2004, 02:21 PM	#31
SSG Troyer All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere to the left of 2nd base Posts: 1,598	There will probably never be a consensus, because everyone is different ... we all have different ideas on what is "right." Getting too many scrubs? Then increase the creation modifiers. Too many stars? Decrease them. It really is a personal thing. One of the reasons for simming a bunch of seasons prior to starting a fictional league, besides giving the league a history, is to adjust the league totals, creation and aging modiers, and anything else to what feels "right" to you. The AB league totals will not change the ABs in your league. They will only change the base on which everything else is calculated. Raising the AB total would have the same effect as lowering every other number in the frame by a smaller percentage (thus raising your played/simmed numbers), and vice versa. __________________ MWT Did Tennesee Delaware Mississppi's New Jersey? Idaho ... Alaska!

07-11-2004, 04:52 AM	#36
Anonymous Ghost All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 751	RE: 2000 "more" ABs Are you using Home Field advantage? If you don't, then the game won't properly account for the home team enjoying a higher winning percentage at homes. Consequently, more bottom-of-the-ninths will be played out, thereby resulting in the higher AB totals.

07-11-2004, 05:02 PM	#37
Big Train Major Leagues Join Date: May 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 402	I miss the 80s game. I know that walks and homers are logically more valuable and efficient. than "small ball" in today's game but strictly speaking from an excitment standpoint as a fan I would much rather see a guy bunt for a hit, steal second and 3rd and score on a shallow sac fly rather than 2 guys work a walk taking 10 minutes each and then some bulked up middle infielder Mark Bellhorn type hit a homer. Efficiency doesn't always equal excitement. I totally agree that the 80s are a totally different style of play than now and should have their own era. Why don't you just go in and edit the era settings so teams steal less or more though? You can customize each era the way you want and don't have to keep the same settings throughout the era. Last edited by Big Train; 07-11-2004 at 09:00 PM.

07-09-2004, 11:59 PM	#24
Matter2003 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In the vicinity of Buffalo,NY Posts: 1,634	Well, the problem is that all the other stats are in line, just the AB's are too high...I am simming sesaons with standard leagues and schedules, and comparing them to the 2003 MLB totals...For instance, in MLB 2003, there were 166,737 AB's. In my simmed league, with all other stats in line, there were 168,790, over 2,000 more AB's. The league batting averages were almost identical(MLB was .26423, simmed was .26402), and all other categories were virtually identical to their MLB counterparts except the number of AB's. The only other thing that could be low is the number of HBP, but it is hard to get a total of this because of the extremely weak Team Totals sections in OOTP that doesn't display this(one of the biggest drawbacks, IMHO). I guess I will have to break down and look at each team individually and see if this is what is causing the discrepency. Changing the AB's seems to have no effect other than causing the other ratings to need to be changed as well. With any number of AB's, and the league average of .264 there are always about 1500-2000 more AB's than there should be. Matter2003

07-10-2004, 12:19 AM	#25
jmm8356 All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Lafayette IN (by way of Tonawanda NY) Posts: 1,673	2053 extra ABs over 166,737 is only 1.2% above nominal. Are you really trying to tune the engine finer than that?

07-10-2004, 09:47 AM	#28
moore4807 All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: Punta Gorda FL. Posts: 1,389	I thought the hit percentage had something to do with AB's too.... I have to keep adjusting it downward every time I start a new career, using 1998 (last expansion year) as the starting time - McGwire keeps belting over 100 HRs per year for 2000 & 2001 - no matter who he plays for. I lowered the HR's and BA to compensate for it (seems to work - McGwire and Sosa have 50-60 Hrs in those years now). Any suggestions are appreciated - but it seemed to tame the Holy Homers!!!!

07-11-2004, 02:22 AM	#32
Matter2003 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In the vicinity of Buffalo,NY Posts: 1,634	seldom gives more realistic SB numbers for recent years...not often is almost a cross between the 1980's and now.... matter2003

07-11-2004, 02:53 AM	#33
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,106	Matter- while I agree with your assesment, it seems when managing games that stealing is almost non-existent under seldom, and therefore HOLD RUNNER almost loses it's purpose. It's almost as though you don't really need to even worry about the guy on first- therefore pitchers with a low HOLD RUNNER rating aren't really penalized.

07-11-2004, 04:08 AM	#34
Matter2003 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In the vicinity of Buffalo,NY Posts: 1,634	Actually I stand corrected on my last post... 2003 MLB SB totals were 2573 SB's and 1132 CS's With Stealing set to Seldom, SB's only totalled 1475...nearly 1,000 less than what they should have been... It appears that not often is the correct setting, but it may even be normal...will do some more simming to see... Matter2003

07-11-2004, 04:36 AM	#35
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,106	I could be wrong here, but it SEEMS as though when using not often, teams are more prudent. In other words, they will be less likely to try to run against a catcher with a good arm- however they'll attempt to run all over a team with Mike Piazza behind the plate.

07-11-2004, 08:56 PM	#38
Anonymous Ghost All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 751	Yeah, I for one agree with making 1980-1992 and 1993-present distinct eras.