Historical replay accuracy

[Siv]

If you had to rate the historical accuracy of this game how would you rate it. I play a lot of historical leagues, but have never went for the accuracy factor as I like to trade and move guys around. I am in it mainly for the name recognition of my youth which provides me with most of my enjoyment.

I am curious to hear from people that play only replay's and shut off trades and control lineups to get there take on its merits. I looked over at Action PC baseball and read some of there threads on how great it is on replay and just wanted a comparison.

Now I will never play another baseball sim other then this as there isn't a product in my opinion that can do what OOTP does,but I would like to hear some thoughts and ideas.

[jtb]

I have dabbled in historical quite a bit over the years--that is the way I initially played. I think OOTP has become better and better in regards to historicals. I could be wrong, but I think most that play OOTP in replay or historical like a solid representation of the said year or years, but also like the variables that can change results. IE-- Pete Rose suffers a CEI and is not the all time hits leader.

Some of the other games seem to have the strict replay niche.

[Siv]

Anyone else have a comment.

[Jah]

I typically play the way you described - turning off computer trading, handling real-life transactions on my own.

Although OOTP has made great strides in the historical area the last couple of versions, I've found it's never quite going to fulfill my needs for the way I like to play. It's not the game's fault as it doesn't purport to be a replay sim like Action or Diamond Mind. Starting with the 2007 version (and continuing with OOTP9), I attempted a "History of Baseball" replay beginning in 1901, handling trades on my own, etc. It's a bit of an undertaking, and the results were disappointing as time went on. I found a lot of fringe/unknown players having career years more often than not...plus teams that were truly awful in real life ended up winning the World Series, etc. - something that made little sense since I was maintaining virtually the same rosters as in real life. Keep in mind, I don't want an exact replay of history - but do I want results that are plausible and within the realm of reality.

Although I stuck with my league for a while, overall the whole thing didn't feel right and I finally gave up in 1907. For some more specific info about my concerns, check out my comments (and others) in this thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-question.html

Anyhow, for historical play, I recently moved on to the other game you mentioned, and it's really top-notch with a lot of features I wish OOTP would employ...and because of the convenience of these features, the overall experience is a lot more fun.

I'll still use OOTP for fictional play (it's clearly the best for that!), but for historical gameplay, the other game is far superior in meeting my needs.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Jah

I typically play the way you described - turning off computer trading, handling real-life transactions on my own.

Although OOTP has made great strides in the historical area the last couple of versions, I've found it's never quite going to fulfill my needs for the way I like to play. It's not the game's fault as it doesn't purport to be a replay sim like Action or Diamond Mind. Starting with the 2007 version (and continuing with OOTP9), I attempted a "History of Baseball" replay beginning in 1901, handling trades on my own, etc. It's a bit of an undertaking, and the results were disappointing as time went on. I found a lot of fringe/unknown players having career years more often than not...plus teams that were truly awful in real life ended up winning the World Series, etc. - something that made little sense since I was maintaining virtually the same rosters as in real life. Keep in mind, I don't want an exact replay of history - but do I want results that are plausible and within the realm of reality.

Although I stuck with my league for a while, overall the whole thing didn't feel right and I finally gave up in 1907. For some more specific info about my concerns, check out my comments (and others) in this thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-question.html

Anyhow, for historical play, I recently moved on to the other game you mentioned, and it's really top-notch with a lot of features I wish OOTP would employ...and because of the convenience of these features, the overall experience is a lot more fun.

I'll still use OOTP for fictional play (it's clearly the best for that!), but for historical gameplay, the other game is far superior in meeting my needs.

This has been my view for the past few years now, especially the 2 items I put in bold. Glad to hear someone else express them so maybe I won't have to hear how I am the only one who has this problem.

[gglennwill]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

This has been my view for the past few years now, especially the 2 items I put in bold. Glad to hear someone else express them so maybe I won't have to hear how I am the only one who has this problem.

Has anyone actually done a study using OOTP9 against historical seasons to see what kind of variation there is? Everyone is always saying that DMB and Dave Koch are more accurate, but it would be interesting to replay a season 1000 times with the three and see what kind of variation there actually is. Throw in Mogul too for fun.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by gglennwill

Has anyone actually done a study using OOTP9 against historical seasons to see what kind of variation there is? Everyone is always saying that DMB and Dave Koch are more accurate, but it would be interesting to replay a season 1000 times with the three and see what kind of variation there actually is. Throw in Mogul too for fun.

Uh-oh. I think if a certain person reads this post this thread is going to take off in a different direction.

I've simmed 1969 about 20 times or so with some fluctuations in the results. The closest I came to reality was when I went with the default import option to "Adjust Batters/Pitchers" with less that 200 AB or *IP (I can't remember the IP off hand).

The problem I see with this is you're cheating better players and giving really poor players better ratings than they deserve. I don't think one should have to adjust players ratings to achieve something realistic. After all, the real life results come from what those players really did. They weren't adjusted at the end of the season based on the number of AB or IP they had.

[Assos]

The one thing I have noticed in my full historical, walk away and let it run is the fact that in 1900's and 1910s, the picthers who played the field are not the greatest and players like Bob Lemon and Babe Ruth, who started elsewhere and have not converted right. Other then that, minding a CEI or many trips to the DL, Ted Williams seems to always average about 20 years, 670 homers, and a .375 average.
I also would like to point out, in the late 1930s and 1940s, the sac fly counted as an AB, so this is something the game can not trainslate properly. Ted Williams would have batted .420s in 1941 if he had roughing 2 sac flies a month.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Assos

The one thing I have noticed in my full historical, walk away and let it run is the fact that in 1900's and 1910s, the picthers who played the field are not the greatest and players like Bob Lemon and Babe Ruth, who started elsewhere and have not converted right.

Did you report this in the tech support area? Last I heard, long ago, it worked ok. I haven't played any years that involved players like that so I can't comment one way or the other on it.

[Assos]

I have not checked lately either, but in 8 it not work. They may have fixed it.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Uh-oh. I think if a certain person reads this post this thread is going to take off in a different direction.

I've simmed 1969 about 20 times or so with some fluctuations in the results. The closest I came to reality was when I went with the default import option to "Adjust Batters/Pitchers" with less that 200 AB or *IP (I can't remember the IP off hand).

The problem I see with this is you're cheating better players and giving really poor players better ratings than they deserve. I don't think one should have to adjust players ratings to achieve something realistic. After all, the real life results come from what those players really did. They weren't adjusted at the end of the season based on the number of AB or IP they had.

Player usage limits. The other games have it. OOTP does not. So, in OOTP, if a marginal player (with good production in a few at-bats) is not "weakened," the AI will overuse him.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

Player usage limits. The other games have it. OOTP does not. So, in OOTP, if a marginal player (with good production in a few at-bats) is not "weakened," the AI will overuse him.

Yes, but that is something that is missing that should be included at some point, automatic transactions or whatever.

However, I do play every team in a historical season, not the AI because of the reason the AI uses people in screwy ways, but even manually things just come out screwy. I'm not going to go into that anymore since I have mentioned some of the things about, hmmm, a million times so I know people are tired of reading it.

But as the poster said, there are other games out there better suited for historical, but none are better for fictional so I will stick withh OOTP for the latter.

[PhillieFever]

I've done numerous tests with OOTP 9 and it is actually possible to recreate a believable historical environment.problem is you have to know what settings to change and this shouldn't be the case.In order to hey believable stats, you have to disable player development and rely on recalc completely.You also have to disable left right splits and neutralize ballpark factors as well.By doing those 3 things you should most definitely see a very good historical representation

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

I've done numerous tests with OOTP 9 and it is actually possible to recreate a believable historical environment.problem is you have to know what settings to change and this shouldn't be the case.In order to hey believable stats, you have to disable player development and rely on recalc completely.You also have to disable left right splits and neutralize ballpark factors as well.By doing those 3 things you should most definitely see a very good historical representation

Hey PhillieFever, n00b here. Very interested in believable historical environments as well. With the highlighted section: do you mean use neutralized stats (i.e. Garlon-Spritze), but keep the default ballpark factors, use neutralized stats and neutralized ballpark factors, or use real stats with neutralized ballpark factors? Goes without saying that you don't mean use real stats with the default ballpark factors because nothing is neutralized there. Thanks in advance for your reply and I'm checking out your previous posts for other ideas for use in historical leagues. Most of it I was doing on my own when I had the OOTP 9 demo, but the disabling of left/right splits was a revelation. Also, according to a post a long time ago, you were using a three year recalc, with double emphasis on the current year: is this still the case or have you find something else that works better? Thanks.

[pstrickert]

PhillieFever may be referring to long-term sims. In short-term sims (such as a single season), I'm seeing worse results when I disable L/R splits and use neutral park factors.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

PhillieFever may be referring to long-term sims. In short-term sims (such as a single season), I'm seeing worse results when I disable L/R splits and use neutral park factors.

Just for clarification, I'm talking about long-term sims as well.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Yes, but that is something that is missing that should be included at some point, automatic transactions or whatever.

That raises the larger philosophical question of what, exactly, should a historical league recreation do in OOTP. I don't think there is any one specific answer.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That raises the larger philosophical question of what, exactly, should a historical league recreation do in OOTP. I don't think there is any one specific answer.

Well, the claim is that it is the best game out there, even for historical. That last part is not true, and the one thing I pointed out is one of the reasons why.

If you're going to claim historical accuracy then it better be just that.

Someone suggested long ago that OOTP should be divided into 2 games, fictitious and historical, and that would be great, but it won't happen. As people have pointed out time and time again, the engine isn't "really designed" to be an historical simulation, even though the newsletter mentions how this version is going to be the "most accurate" version for SINGLE SEASON historical replay. So what everyone is claiming is opposite of what Markus himself states in the newsletter.

But in reality, because the game is primarily for fictional play, it will never be the best historical game out there, and that's fine. I'm happy with the fictional part and that's what I use OOTP for, and I don't think anyone will ever be able to top OOTP for that.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

If you're going to claim historical accuracy then it better be just that.

That's exactly the point—what does historical accuracy mean in this context? If Player A in 1974 typically batted third in the line up, played in 100 games, and hit .270, does that mean in OOTP he must typically bat third, play in 100 games, and hit .270? How far from those figures can the game diverge and still be considered historically accurate?

What I'm getting at is that any major league season is the result of an enormously interwoven tapestry of events. Once you start pulling on some of the threads, the results should not expected to be identical since you are changing the nature of the tapestry. OOTP already does this in one small way—the schedules used are the original schedules, not as they were played. This means variations in off days from how the real season unfolded, and consequently alterations to pitching rotations, which necessarily should be expected to impact pitcher usage. The effect may be small, but it's there, and the more of it that goes on the more the results may likely be different at the end. The same sort of thing would be true with a myriad of other small influences.

Basically, it comes down to this: what items in a historical league in OOTP are allowed to vary from reality, and to what degree? I don't think there'll be much consensus on this, especially once you get down to the specific details, and because much of it is subjective judgement.

[Jah]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's exactly the point—what does historical accuracy mean in this context? If Player A in 1974 typically batted third in the line up, played in 100 games, and hit .270, does that mean in OOTP he must typically bat third, play in 100 games, and hit .270? How far from those figures can the game diverge and still be considered historically accurate?

What I'm getting at is that any major league season is the result of an enormously interwoven tapestry of events. Once you start pulling on some of the threads, the results should not expected to be identical since you are changing the nature of the tapestry. OOTP already does this in one small way—the schedules used are the original schedules, not as they were played. This means variations in off days from how the real season unfolded, and consequently alterations to pitching rotations, which necessarily should be expected to impact pitcher usage. The effect may be small, but it's there, and the more of it that goes on the more the results may likely be different at the end. The same sort of thing would be true with a myriad of other small influences.

Basically, it comes down to this: what items in a historical league in OOTP are allowed to vary from reality, and to what degree? I don't think there'll be much consensus on this, especially once you get down to the specific details, and because much of it is subjective judgement.

It's really not this complicated. "Historical accuracy" should mean the results approximate reality - good hitters are usually good, bad hitters bad, good pitchers good, etc. The results do not have to DUPLICATE reality, but everything should be within the realm of believability when compared to the players/teams/season in question. And because in OOTP we are working with historical imports and 3-year recalc and historical league totals, etc. - plausible results should be expected.

For the kind of results we shouldn't see (which obliterate even the broadest definition of historical accuracy), check out this thread...http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-question.html

When individual player stats are out of whack, team performance can be affected as well. In OOTP - or any other purported replay or replay-like sim - it isn't plausible for a real-life .250 lifetime hitter to hit .345...or a pitcher who won one game in his whole career to have a 25-win season...or a real-life 100-loss team to win the World Series. This isn't acceptable in any historical sim...under whatever definition of "historical accuracy" you prefer.

Sure, there are a lot of factors involved that can alter results, and I prefer some variance my replays - as long as it's within the realm of reality for the season being played. I'm playing another game right now for my historical replays - the results aren't an exact duplicate of what happened, but they are all plausible and believable...and the game is a blast to play without the wild variations I've seen season after season in OOTP. Furthermore, playing a season is a much simpler process - no need to endlessly tweak and test settings to try to "get things right."

Once again - for fictional play, OOTP is unmatched...but historical is another story.