BZ 1739: Request for Minimum Requirement Option for Leaderboards

Ambermonk · 07-09-2008, 04:03 PM

Markus has stated that this does not need fixing but, to be brazenly honest, this screen is an utter disgrace. This is the team leaders screen (after 29 games). Any statistician who presented these stats to his manager would probably be fired on the spot for incompetence.

As announcers occasionally say about a player's performance: "It's just not good enough!"

tysok · 07-09-2008, 04:34 PM

I would agree, for whatever that's worth.

Manager: "Who's leading the team in batting average so far?"
Statistician: "Sure thing, hmm... let me see.... oh! Nobody yet."

satchel · 07-09-2008, 05:23 PM

Are you certain that you have some players with enough at-bats to qualify?

Ambermonk · 07-09-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satchel

Are you certain that you have some players with enough at-bats to qualify?

Well, that's the point. This is a fictional league and I rotate starting assignments liberally so that I can give all the players on my team more experience. This is what Markus had to say...

...the reason why no hitters show up for you is that none of your players has more than the limit of 310 PA [plate appearances] (3.1 * Team game). That is because of the player useage settings in your depth chart.

That means, to be considered for any listing in OOTP, a batter must be starting more than 75% of all the team's games (with no other days off or injuries).

This may be OK for Major League Baseball, but OOTP is a game. If you must, then put an asterisk after the player's name - but don't completely deny his existence in the league just because he only played 75% of the time!

If you were a prospective buyer of OOTP and you saw the your entire team's batters were not recognized by the league, don't you think that this would have a negative impact on future sales?

satchel · 07-09-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

If you were a prospective buyer of OOTP and you saw the your entire team's batters were not recognized by the league, don't you think that this would have a negative impact on future sales?

If I saw any baseball game which let "humpty-dumpties...steal a batting championship in half a season's work" (Casey Stengel), I would not buy it.

The 3.1 at-bats per game threshold is the well-established, logical modern standard. Maybe the game should have the option of changing this, but as it stands it's wholly and correctly a part of the statistics of baseball.

Ambermonk · 07-09-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satchel

If I saw any baseball game which let "humpty-dumpties...steal a batting championship in half a season's work" (Casey Stengel), I would not buy it.

The 3.1 at-bats per game threshold is the well-established, logical modern standard. Maybe the game should have the option of changing this, but as it stands it's wholly and correctly a part of the statistics of baseball.

Understood, and agreed with, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an option to list the player and put an asterisk after his name (ineligible) instead of not showing anybody. this was my original request several months ago.

satchel · 07-09-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

...it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an option to list the player...instead of not showing anybody.

Likewise agreed. Ideally, the human player could adjust the requirement for minimum number of at-bats to qualify.

Ambermonk · 07-09-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satchel

Likewise agreed. Ideally, the human player could adjust the requirement for minimum number of at-bats to qualify.

I play a 100 game season (which probably exacerbates the situation) and, ideally, I would like to set the minimum to be 200 ABs to qualify. 200 at-bats in a 100 game season doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Thanks for your posts.

Ambermonk · 07-11-2008, 08:18 PM

I'll give another exaggerated example that Illustrates the point:

I'm playing a 10-game schedule.

My star player is batting .500 after 7 games (70% of season)
He is sick for 3 days because of the flu.
Since he only played in 70% of the games in the league schedule, he goes unlisted on all leaderboards.

The system of 3.1 PA criteria that MLB uses is based on a 162 game schedule - in real life.

Playing in a 100-game season (62% of real life), 62% of 3.1 PA would be 1.98 PA, which is why I felt that 200 ABs for a 100 game season was reasonable.

While I am playing just 62% of a normal season, I'm suffering 100% of the normal incidence of injuries and 100% time lost for the duration of injuries - both of which affect the chances to reach 3.1 PA.

I have no problem with people wanting 3.1 PA for simulating a 162-game schedule, but we should not lose sight of the fact the OOTP is still a game, and it is extremely unfair (not to mention inflexible) to force a 162-game schedule on people so that the rest of the "simulation" works properly.

Le Grande Orange · 07-12-2008, 01:01 AM

It'd be nice if OOTP at least let the user choose between the major league criteria (3.1 PA/gm for hitters, 1.0 IP/gm for pitchers) or the minor league criteria (2.7 PA/gm for hitters, 0.8 IP/gm for pitchers).

Personally, I'd love to see the older major league criteria for league leaders be available (e.g. 400 AB for hitters, 10 CG for pitchers, etc.), particularly for historical leagues.

Nutlaw · 07-14-2008, 09:10 PM

I don't agree at all with the tone of some of these posts. I believe that we can have differing opinions without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all that the game behaves in this manner, but a request to change minimum criteria doesn't seem unreasonable however.

I'll log this, but I would request that we keep our cool in future posts in Tech Support. It will help things to go much smoother for all of us.

Nutlaw · 07-14-2008, 09:12 PM

Bz 1739

Nutlaw · 09-25-2008, 07:19 PM

This was marked as something to be addressed at a later time.

07-09-2008, 04:03 PM	#1
Ambermonk All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Morro Bay, CA Posts: 1,257	BZ 1739: Request for Minimum Requirement Option for Leaderboards Markus has stated that this does not need fixing but, to be brazenly honest, this screen is an utter disgrace. This is the team leaders screen (after 29 games). Any statistician who presented these stats to his manager would probably be fired on the spot for incompetence. As announcers occasionally say about a player's performance: "It's just not good enough!" Attached Images __________________ *I cast this question into your soul, that I might know how deep it is* - Friedrich Nietzsche It often shows a fine command of language - to say nothing! - Bertrand Russell

07-09-2008, 04:34 PM	#2
tysok Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,925	I would agree, for whatever that's worth. Manager: "Who's leading the team in batting average so far?" Statistician: "Sure thing, hmm... let me see.... oh! Nobody yet." __________________ I don't know about you, but as for me, the question has already been answered: Should we be here? Yes! Jack Buck, September 17, 2001 It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. I firmly believe that any man's finest hour... is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious. (Vince Lombardi) I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom. (George S. Patton)

07-09-2008, 05:23 PM	#3
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith Ark. USA Posts: 2,681	Are you certain that you have some players with enough at-bats to qualify? __________________ JL Commish NPBL Rhode Island Reds ’33 ’34 ’35 TCBA San Francisco Railbornes ’74 ’76 ’77 ’78 FL New Orleans Black Sox ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59

07-11-2008, 08:18 PM	#9
Ambermonk All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Morro Bay, CA Posts: 1,257	I'll give another exaggerated example that Illustrates the point: I'm playing a 10-game schedule. My star player is batting .500 after 7 games (70% of season) He is sick for 3 days because of the flu. Since he only played in 70% of the games in the league schedule, he goes unlisted on all leaderboards. The system of 3.1 PA criteria that MLB uses is based on a 162 game schedule - in real life. Playing in a 100-game season (62% of real life), 62% of 3.1 PA would be 1.98 PA, which is why I felt that 200 ABs for a 100 game season was reasonable. While I am playing just 62% of a normal season, I'm suffering 100% of the normal incidence of injuries and 100% time lost for the duration of injuries - both of which affect the chances to reach 3.1 PA. I have no problem with people wanting 3.1 PA for simulating a 162-game schedule, but we should not lose sight of the fact the OOTP is still a game, and it is extremely unfair (not to mention inflexible) to force a 162-game schedule on people so that the rest of the "simulation" works properly. __________________ *I cast this question into your soul, that I might know how deep it is* - Friedrich Nietzsche It often shows a fine command of language - to say nothing! - Bertrand Russell Last edited by Ambermonk; 07-11-2008 at 08:21 PM.

07-12-2008, 01:01 AM	#10
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	It'd be nice if OOTP at least let the user choose between the major league criteria (3.1 PA/gm for hitters, 1.0 IP/gm for pitchers) or the minor league criteria (2.7 PA/gm for hitters, 0.8 IP/gm for pitchers). Personally, I'd love to see the older major league criteria for league leaders be available (e.g. 400 AB for hitters, 10 CG for pitchers, etc.), particularly for historical leagues.

07-14-2008, 09:10 PM	#11
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	I don't agree at all with the tone of some of these posts. I believe that we can have differing opinions without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all that the game behaves in this manner, but a request to change minimum criteria doesn't seem unreasonable however. I'll log this, but I would request that we keep our cool in future posts in Tech Support. It will help things to go much smoother for all of us.

07-14-2008, 09:12 PM	#12
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	Bz 1739

09-25-2008, 07:19 PM	#13
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	This was marked as something to be addressed at a later time.