A little OOTP 11 update...

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

In a fictional baseball universe, you don't want the AI to be able to see the future. But we're talking HISTORICAL solo play here. And house rules don't solve the problem, because trades between AI clubs can still be absurd, and that can disrupt the entire balance of a league.

People really think this is a bad idea? This has always ruined historical leagues for me, and driven me to fictional. I realize every type of play has it's issues, but this one turns historical play into observation only. It's a shame, because I think this would be a popular way to play the game.

[pstrickert]

Makes sense to me, too. For solo play, that is.

[JinAZ]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I know, but the OPS+ I want does not act as a new offensive measure, but rather as a display how another stats (OPS) relates to league average. If I change the weight of the two factors, one cannot compare it to league average anymore...

I'm not trying to be snarky, but if you're actually calculating OPS+ exactly the way BRef does, it's not a straight-up relationship of OPS to league average either. BRef does this:
OPS+ = PRO+ = 100 * ( OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)/BPF

Which is weighting OBP to league average 1st, then weighting SLG to league average 2nd, and then effectively averaging them. This increases the weight of OBP beyond how it typically is weighted in OPS. It's just that this is not quite enough to get the weights correct such that they match up to linear weights (and wRC+, which someone else mentioned).

An absolutely true OPS+ would be, I think:
OPS+ = 100 * (OPS/lgOPS)/BPF
(or, to keep it on the same scale, you could multiply OPS/lgOPS by two and then subtract 1).

But ultimately, it doesn't really matter to me. I guess I just wanted to raise the issue, but it sounds like you're aware of it--and it's your game.
-j

[Killing Time]

How about everyone stops snarking at each other? Please?

Charlie's idea would trash historical play for me, but there's another way to skin this cat. If the goal is that you as a GM shouldn't know what the future value of players is then do what Le Grande Orange suggested and randomize all the player names. I took a historical league and did that and now I'm having twice the fun that I was before.

Doesn't require any changes to the game that other people wouldn't like to do that either.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by JinAZ

and it's your game

And he plays it his way!

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Killing Time

How about everyone stops snarking at each other? Please?

Okay. No more snark. It was just that Charlie's comment about how we just didn't get it that set me off. It reminded me of Obama speaking on why the majority of America opposes his nationalized health care program - "You're only opposing me on this because I haven't explained it clearly enough to you" (and so you don't yet understand the wonders of my idea) - as if no one could understand either Obama's or Charlie's ideas and still oppose them on their obvious lack of merit.

So - do you really want to play a Charlie-style historical league where the AI, armed with precise future values for every player, knows how to draft perfectly, knows just who to cut and just who not to cut, and how to trade flawlessly, bearing in mind that you don't and won't? A league where you could never make not just a good trade but never once make an even trade? A league where you could not make even the historical trades that made your team much better (Smoltz for Alexander, for instance, would never happen, so goodbye Braves of the Nineties)? A league where every free agent would be guaranteed to be not worth picking up?t A league where the only real item of chance would be who got injured and who suffered a CEI?

An AI that knew the future? I'd never play historical again.

[silvam14]

This is why I play fictional.

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by The Real MD

most realistic...ever??

Okay. Hope it's true.

Well, my knowledge of baseball is potentially small, but I'm not sure how realistic it can be if inter-league business is still not handled as historically was. (as in the PCL making their business by selling players, which is not at all represented in the game).

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by silvam14

This is why I play fictional.

You and me, pal. Over the years, I have never understood the value of historical replay, as much as I respect its fans.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

You and me, pal. Over the years, I have never understood the value of historical replay, as much as I respect its fans.

I feel the same. I have tried historical replay many times in the past. I just cannot get into it. So I just fire up a fictional league with some history, start in the year 2002 (the year I graduated) and create my own person and place myself on the Atlanta Braves farm system (my team, of course!), and watch him develop as I play out each game.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Okay. No more snark. It was just that Charlie's comment about how we just didn't get it that set me off. It reminded me of Obama speaking on why the majority of America opposes his nationalized health care program - "You're only opposing me on this because I haven't explained it clearly enough to you" (and so you don't yet understand the wonders of my idea) - as if no one could understand either Obama's or Charlie's ideas and still oppose them on their obvious lack of merit.

So - do you really want to play a Charlie-style historical league where the AI, armed with precise future values for every player, knows how to draft perfectly, knows just who to cut and just who not to cut, and how to trade flawlessly, bearing in mind that you don't and won't? A league where you could never make not just a good trade but never once make an even trade? A league where you could not make even the historical trades that made your team much better (Smoltz for Alexander, for instance, would never happen, so goodbye Braves of the Nineties)? A league where every free agent would be guaranteed to be not worth picking up?t A league where the only real item of chance would be who got injured and who suffered a CEI?

An AI that knew the future? I'd never play historical again.

I probably don't support a strict interpretation of Charlie's idea, but you are also taking it to the extreme. An AI that knows the future value of players doesn't have to be made to strictly follow those values. Some variance could be built in. Maybe the AI knows a player's future value within a range. Maybe that range could be +/- 30% of the true value. Perhaps it is sometimes way off (kind of like scouting). There could be many ways to implement this. Again this might not be the best or only way to improve the AI, but it could lead to discussions that build upon this idea.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by ms2002

I'm definitely in favor of a wOBA+ or wRC+ statistic, but tRA wouldn't work in OOTP. tRA requires batted ball statistics that OOTP doesn't truly utilize. FIP+ would suffice...

Changing the event engine to reflect batted-ball data as drivers for plate appearance outcomes rather than as post facto markers should be on the table for needed changes, IMHO, and would make the game truly wonderful. I don't see how the new fielding stats are really anything more than eye candy otherwise, since the balls don't really go into zones in the game, but are sorted only after the outcome of the plate appearance is determined.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Explain to me why OOTP 11 coudn't keep track of line drives, fly balls, pop ups and ground balls, given that it's a new version and it should have been keeping track of these things anyway.

Someone who's more intimately connected with the game would be a stronger authority, but how I understand the game to work is that the outcome of a plate appearance (strikeout, BB, HR, HBP, hit, out) is determined before any aspects of a batted ball is determined. That is, the engine doesn't decide if a ball is hit in play and then determines if it is an out, but decides first if it's an out or hit, then uses distribution matrices to "assign" the outcome to a batted-ball type and area of the field. The type of batted ball shown (LD, GB, FB, etc.) doesn't factor in to how the engine determines what happens with a plate appearance, but is only a cosmetic designation that overlies the more simplistic game engine.

Therefore, unless the engine is recoded, new zone-based fielding data will only reflect the same type of deployment of batted-ball data that exists currently. The fact that your centerfielder got to X% of balls in his zone, and, if it's calculated, saves X number of runs, doesn't reflect a process that actually takes place in the game engine.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I feel the same. I have tried historical replay many times in the past. I just cannot get into it. So I just fire up a fictional league with some history, start in the year 2002 (the year I graduated) and create my own person and place myself on the Atlanta Braves farm system (my team, of course!), and watch him develop as I play out each game.

We got two conversations going at once in this thread, so I will just answer this and duck out.

I dunno. I don't want to spoil anybody's fun by saying what I do about historical play. I think it may be that I need to reinforce my own feelings about it and my love for fictional play that I post comments about both from time to time. I certainly don't want to spoil anybody's fun.

Yet, this: How can it be fulfilling to set up historical play and either sim it out to see how close it comes to reality, or play it out to see if either it comes close to reality, or is changed, by one's intervention? In either case, it seems to me that such people set themselves up for disappointment because some randomness is built in to this game by necessity. Besides, hit reality on the head, boring; end up far from the mark, frustrating. Where is the fun?

'Nuff said. Apologies. Have fun, you guys, seriously!

[ShaneCarson]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

We got two conversations going at once in this thread, so I will just answer this and duck out.

I dunno. I don't want to spoil anybody's fun by saying what I do about historical play. I think it may be that I need to reinforce my own feelings about it and my love for fictional play that I post comments about both from time to time. I certainly don't want to spoil anybody's fun.

Yet, this: How can it be fulfilling to set up historical play and either sim it out to see how close it comes to reality, or play it out to see if either it comes close to reality, or is changed, by one's intervention? In either case, it seems to me that such people set themselves up for disappointment because some randomness is built in to this game by necessity. Besides, hit reality on the head, boring; end up far from the mark, frustrating. Where is the fun?

'Nuff said. Apologies. Have fun, you guys, seriously!

I honestly felt the same way about historical play for a long time. It just made no sense to me and I liked playing either fictional or current MLB.

But I decided to give it one last hurrah and turned recalc off, made it so players didn't retire according to history and finely tuned aging and talent change randomness to my liking. I started in '75 and I am having a blast with it, being in the '79 season so far. I get to watch Mark Fidrych develop into a long term pitcher, Ray Bare is a staff ace, nobody wants Nolan Ryan, the Expos won the '78 World Series, etc. So it's not playing out ANYTHING like real baseball did and I'll tell you what, I love it!

[Cornelius McGillicuddy]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

You and me, pal. Over the years, I have never understood the value of historical replay, as much as I respect its fans.

I don't know how others do it but I like to play a season at a time in different eras, play out games, and just see how everything goes.

Kind of like people who play historical wargames compared to those who only like a random setup I guess.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

We got two conversations going at once in this thread, so I will just answer this and duck out.

I dunno. I don't want to spoil anybody's fun by saying what I do about historical play. I think it may be that I need to reinforce my own feelings about it and my love for fictional play that I post comments about both from time to time. I certainly don't want to spoil anybody's fun.

Yet, this: How can it be fulfilling to set up historical play and either sim it out to see how close it comes to reality, or play it out to see if either it comes close to reality, or is changed, by one's intervention? In either case, it seems to me that such people set themselves up for disappointment because some randomness is built in to this game by necessity. Besides, hit reality on the head, boring; end up far from the mark, frustrating. Where is the fun?

'Nuff said. Apologies. Have fun, you guys, seriously!

This is of course, only through your eyes.

There are other ways to play historical with real players that is very enjoyable. If you don't like it, don't play it. That's your prerogative. However don't label it as boring either just because you wear blinders and can only see it through your eyes.

I play historicals both ways, with real players and with fictional. I've even done mixes of the two. There is plenty of enjoyment to be had with all three options.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

Changing the event engine to reflect batted-ball data as drivers for plate appearance outcomes rather than as post facto markers should be on the table for needed changes, IMHO, and would make the game truly wonderful. I don't see how the new fielding stats are really anything more than eye candy otherwise, since the balls don't really go into zones in the game, but are sorted only after the outcome of the plate appearance is determined.

A little off-topic, but I had a question about fielding nonetheless, and hoping someone with more knowledge oculd help:

I have always been wondering what the purpose of Range Factor is? I mean, I know the purpose is to try to have some meaningful measurement of how much "range" a player has at their position, primarily determined by the number outs each players makes per game. Or something thereabouts.

Now, what I was wondering about the purpose of this stat, 1st base is the least-skilled position of all, and every player who plays there inevitably has the highest Range Factor many times more than the second highest on the team.

Having said that, RF is a useless fielding stat to me, simply because it shows me my first baseman is the best fielder on the team. And I know this to be completely untrue. My SS or CF are usually my top two fielders, and yet, their RF is many times lower than my 1B.

So, what's the point?

[ShaneCarson]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

A little off-topic, but I had a question about fielding nonetheless, and hoping someone with more knowledge oculd help:

I have always been wondering what the purpose of Range Factor is? I mean, I know the purpose is to try to have some meaningful measurement of how much "range" a player has at their position, primarily determined by the number outs each players makes per game. Or something thereabouts.

Now, what I was wondering about the purpose of this stat, 1st base is the least-skilled position of all, and every player who plays there inevitably has the highest Range Factor many times more than the second highest on the team.

Having said that, RF is a useless fielding stat to me, simply because it shows me my first baseman is the best fielder on the team. And I know this to be completely untrue. My SS or CF are usually my top two fielders, and yet, their RF is many times lower than my 1B.

So, what's the point?

You wouldn't compare range factors between positions. The range factor for a 1B is completely independent of range factor for a SS. You just compare within positions, so you can only compare Cal Ripken Jr. to Alan Trammell or Robin Yount. You can't compare them to Kirk Gibson.

[Cornelius McGillicuddy]

I don't know for sure but would think range factor has something to do with how far and accurate a fielder can throw.

And I'm not so sure why you think the first baseman is the least skilled position. In addition to fielding he is responsible for digging errant throws out of the dirt while keeping his foot on the base.