I've Had It

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Why should I need to prove anything? If you contend that playing without ratings is more difficult, back it up with something tangible... something other than "I say so". Otherwise, my point stands.

That is what I thought.....

[ThePretender]

Just because he doesn't want to waste his time playing stats only doesn't mean that he's wrong. I 100% agree with him. It's overrated and not as challenging as it's made out to be.

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Just because he doesn't want to waste his time playing stats only doesn't mean that he's wrong. I 100% agree with him. It's overrated and not as challenging as it's made out to be.

Congratulations the first person to agree with Orcin...you should be so proud.


When either of you come up with some real proof,instead of opinions let me know.

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by Orcin

my point stands.

You see Orcin,that is the problem. You have no real point.

You have no problem posting 120 win seasons playing historical ,by exploiting trade AI among other exploits.

But offer no credible proof that you can achieve that with stats only fictional play over the long haul.


Why is that?

Show us how you can win 120 games every year playing stats only fictional. Why is that asking too much?



Proof is in the pudding.

[Rosco Peabody]

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by Scoman

Congratulations the first person to agree with Orcin...you should be so proud.


When either of you come up with some real proof,instead of opinions let me know.

Ok, sure.

I've found that minor league numbers are worthless. I have a player with a 500 OPS in AAA have his ratings jump significantly. So there's no actual link between performance here, and development.That's actually a major issue I have with the game, and I'll talk about that later.

It'd be one thing if, you know, it took some actual skill to determine if a guy was ready. If a guy is struggling yet he had good K:BB/ISO, or something, then you could legitimately tell me that there's some skill involved in stats only. If you looked over a 2-3 month period and saw a jump in OPS, or improving K:BB numbers, then sure, you could tell me a prospect is ready for the next level, and I'd buy into stats only being a challenging/fun way to play. But there's no connection between stats and ratings in the minor leagues, which means there's no actual skill involved when it comes to stats only and minor league development and call ups. Even with ratings on, this bothers me, because a player should be producing in the minors if he's increasing his talents. Otherwise how can you justify the player getting better?

Once they're at the major league level, there's some skill involved, sure. But whether you're playing stats only or not it's pretty clear who the good players are after a few months, and for veterans after a few seasons. Stats only might even be easier in some cases, because in a ratings league I would get rid of a declining player ASAP, but if he is performing well in a stats only league I would keep said player for a longer period. So while the ratings might decline, the performance might not, and I Might end up having a better team because I kept the declining player simply because he continued performing.

There are certainly pros and cons to stats only, but I don't think the minor league system is effective at linking performance to ratings which is one of the reasons I strongly dislike stats only. I'd be perfectly happy to play it if development/performance were tied together, and it's actually something that really frustrates me in general even playing with ratings. A player should develop their ratings when their performance improves, not because random talent says they should improve at this point. Or in the major leagues when a 26 year old is having a career year and his ratings decline - but that's another topic altogether.

The bottom line is you play the game you want, and that's your choice, but don't pretend to tell me that it's more challenging when it's not. It's a different challenge, it's not more challenging.

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Ok, sure.

I've found that minor league numbers are worthless. I have a player with a 500 OPS in AAA have his ratings jump significantly. So there's no actual link between performance here, and development.That's actually a major issue I have with the game, and I'll talk about that later.

It'd be one thing if, you know, it took some actual skill to determine if a guy was ready. If a guy is struggling yet he had good K:BB/ISO, or something, then you could legitimately tell me that there's some skill involved in stats only. But there's no connection between stats and ratings in the minor leagues, which means there's no actual skill involved when it comes to stats only and minor league development and call ups. Even with ratings on, this bothers me, because a player should be producing in the minors if he's increasing his talents. Otherwise how can you justify the player getting better?

Once they're at the major league level, there's some skill involved, sure. But whether you're playing stats only or not it's pretty clear who the good players are after a few months, and for veterans after a few seasons. Stats only might even be easier in some cases, because in a ratings league I would get rid of a declining player ASAP, but if he is performing well in a stats only league I would keep said player for a longer period. So while the ratings might decline, the performance might not, and I Might end up having a better team because I kept the declining player simply because he continued performing.

There are certainly pros and cons to stats only, but I don't think the minor league system is effective at linking performance to ratings which is one of the reasons I strongly dislike ratings only. I'd be perfectly happy to play it if development/performance were tied together, and it's actually something that really frustrates me in general even playing with ratings. A player should develop their ratings when their performance improves, not because random talent says they should improve at this point. Or in the major leagues when a 26 year old is having a career year and his ratings decline - but that's another topic altogether.

The bottom line is you play the game you want, and that's your choice, but don't pretend to tell me that it's more challenging when it's not. It's a different challenge, it's not more challenging.

There ya go,that is more like it. Nice post.

I think the best way to play stats only is with feeder leagues too.

No one said stats only fictional is perfect by no means.

Its an alternative way to play.

But to say it is not more of a challenge than with all ratings on with perfect scouting is just plain crazy.

And I totally believe in playing your own way,that's the beauty of this game.

.

[ThePretender]

I don't think it's crazy to say that at all. Many times I've had players with fantastic ratings who underachieve for their careers. One of the guys I drafted was a pitcher who probably had the best ratings of anybody in the league. He ended up being a good pitcher, but not an all time great like his ratings suggested. In fact, he ended up having inferior stats to another guy on my staff, with good, but not elite ratings.

One guy was 93-82-94, the other was 84-85-75. The first guy had no splits, the second guy was significantly weaker vs LHH.

Yet despite playing in the same park with the same defence behind them, one guy was a 124 ERA+ pitcher, the other was 120 (both pitchers had a sample of a 10 or so year period). Now, had I been playing stats only, I wouldn't have been disappointed by the first guy. But seeing his ratings, I clearly expected a better performance. I expected an ace, not a solid #1/2. In that league the first guy was comparable to couple of other similarly rated pitchers, who were generally around a 140 ERA+.

In stats only I would have figured out they were both excellent pitchers, sure, but the first guy always felt like a disappointment given his ratings.

In other cases guys with good ratings simply underperform, whereas in stats only you'd scout the stat line and quickly recognize the player wasn't worthwhile. I'd give a guy with good ratings more chances, which would hurt my team, whereas stats only wouldn't do that.

So there are challenges that exist in both, which is why I don't think one method is more challenging than the other. Different challenges, not more challenging.

[C-Man73]

To the OP ... I have played with the Braves in every OOTP version since I first got into the game in 2011(?) and I am able to build a 100-win team/World Series contender by Year 3 every time without fail.

Sometimes you have to make difficult short-term decisions in the interest of long-term success (just like the real team has). For example, I traded away Freddie Freeman by Year 2 or 3 every year until this one (I kept him this year), but got a nice haul of prospects who ended up contributing to a winner.

One tip for trading ... when you shop a player, the AI will only offer 1-for-1 deals. But that doesn't mean you have to accept them. Many times I will click on a player from a team that expresses interest, then on the next screen remove the player they offered from the proposed trade. I'll then go to their prospects list and start dropping-and-dragging different combinations of players until the AI accepts one of the offers. I have "fleeced" opposing teams —*at least in the long term — on numerous occasions this way.

And let me tell you, once Ozzie Albies, Ronald Acuna, Ian Anderson and Kevin Maitan reach the majors in the OOTP world, it's a lot of fun managing the Braves. I only hope that holds true in real life.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Scoman

There ya go,that is more like it. Nice post.

I think the best way to play stats only is with feeder leagues too.

No one said stats only fictional is perfect by no means.

Its an alternative way to play.

But to say it is not more of a challenge than with all ratings on with perfect scouting is just plain crazy.

Who said anything about "with perfect scouting"? Is that how you think people play with ratings on? Obviously, normal scouting or less is used to provide a fog of war.

If someone were to win 120 games in a fictional league with ratings turned off, how would you know that they didn't look in the editor for real ratings every time a decision was needed? If they did it in Challenge Mode where the editor is not available, you would claim they could not have done it with trading set to very hard and heavily favor prospects (not possible in Challenge Mode). Why should anyone waste their time playing the game your way when you will never admit you are wrong anyway? That's silly.

The fact remains that you made the claim, and you cannot support the claim. So it is your opinion only, and no better than mine or anyone else.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

So there are challenges that exist in both, which is why I don't think one method is more challenging than the other. Different challenges, not more challenging.

You make great points. Unfortunately I can tell you from years of experience that the sycophants don't care about logic. They are true believers and no amount of logic will move them off the myth. They just ignore your arguments and keep saying that you are crazy and everyone else agrees with them so you should too.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Bears5122

Wouldn't it increase strikeouts as well?

no, because the random seed they use for that AB is calculated once and that's it... otheriwse it wouldn't work well.

Take pitches until you cannot take them (i.e. 2 strike count).

so... Take pitch does 2 thigns for you... A) it tires out the other teams bullpen, because you burn through their SP's quickly due to high pitch counts. B) you get ~roughly the same statistical results regardless of a X-2 count, because they only calculate 1 seed.. 1-die roll re-used for the entire PA.

especially with 3+ game series... by game three they have nothing and you will absolutely wreck whomever they throw out there in relief (most likely, never a guarantee, but results prove the point in the long-term)

otherwise there's no way you can maintain a goood runs scored/game to make it viable. (1-die roll)

about 1-die roll:
it's not predetermined anymore than it has to be (limited choices, probability of each occuring, etc)... in the long-run it's equivalent in the resulting statistics (a 1-die roll vs a bit more sophistication, lol).. 1-die roll reduces volatility too.. maybe it's covering up an inherent flaw, maybe it's just for sake of simplicity with virtually the same results to the naked eye, at least. distribution is a bit different, i'd bet.

[NoOne]

stats only isn't necessarily more difficult as far as player expertise/experience, but it does take more time on the game calendar to know things. So it's reasonable to assume that it amounts to technically fewer wins... you lose a few more games making the same choices due to luck, but not because it's harder to comprehend.

You make the same decisions for the same reasons, just with info that's not quite as accurate or precise in most cases.... more luck invovled (randomness, chaos, however you want to read that)

it's safe to say that stats-only has elements of realism to it, as does having ratings on... definitely debateable and arbitrary in nature. not an argument for either, yet portrayed that way in the forums often, lol. on both sides!

[Scoman]

To me the biggest difference in playing stats only is the drafting phase of the game.

It makes the draft much more hit and miss,just like in real life.

Thus making it much harder to create super teams.


Unless of course you exploit the game in other ways.

[4maddux_cy's]

Originally Posted by C-Man73

To the OP ... I have played with the Braves in every OOTP version since I first got into the game in 2011(?) and I am able to build a 100-win team/World Series contender by Year 3 every time without fail.

Sometimes you have to make difficult short-term decisions in the interest of long-term success (just like the real team has). For example, I traded away Freddie Freeman by Year 2 or 3 every year until this one (I kept him this year), but got a nice haul of prospects who ended up contributing to a winner.

One tip for trading ... when you shop a player, the AI will only offer 1-for-1 deals. But that doesn't mean you have to accept them. Many times I will click on a player from a team that expresses interest, then on the next screen remove the player they offered from the proposed trade. I'll then go to their prospects list and start dropping-and-dragging different combinations of players until the AI accepts one of the offers. I have "fleeced" opposing teams —*at least in the long term — on numerous occasions this way.

And let me tell you, once Ozzie Albies, Ronald Acuna, Ian Anderson and Kevin Maitan reach the majors in the OOTP world, it's a lot of fun managing the Braves. I only hope that holds true in real life.

How has Kolby Allard and Joey Wentz fared for you? They have been absolute busts for me in each of my games. Austin Riley turned into a Hall of Famer in one sim and never made the majors in another. He is all over the map, which is kind of realistic given his real life track record.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Scoman

You have no problem posting 120 win seasons playing historical ,by exploiting trade AI among other exploits.

I resent your implication. You posted in the thread that you reference, so you know exactly why I made those posts. If not, go back and read post #1 and #4 in the thread. You will see that my purpose was to convince the developers to eliminate these exploits. Don't insult someone's integrity simply because they don't agree with you.

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I resent your implication. You posted in the thread that you reference, so you know exactly why I made those posts. If not, go back and read post #1 and #4 in the thread. You will see that my purpose was to convince the developers to eliminate these exploits. Don't insult someone's integrity simply because they don't agree with you.

Exactly and those exploits have always been there.

Basically why people started playing stats only in the first place,you know,the people who actually want to challenge themselves.

That is old news.

The real issue is your refusal to admit stats only is just as easy, when its simply not true be whatever the reasons are.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Scoman

The real issue is your refusal to admit stats only is just as easy, when its simply not true be whatever the reasons are.

I don't really understand your sentence but I am sure I know what you meant. The real issue is your refusal to allow a dissenting opinion to be posted without trying to beat it into submission. Why does it bother you so much that I don't agree?

[Scoman]

Gonna agree to disagree on this one, time to move on.

You have your opinion,and I have mine. In the end you've done nothing to back up your statements and I seriously doubt you've ever gave stats only a real chance.

Moving on.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Scoman

In the end you've done nothing to back up your statements

Just as you have done nothing to back up your statements.