So, OK, an official farewell ...

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by bk2bkjks

It's a simulation game which simulates what happens in a baseball world.

Exactly. That's why I've always said it's ideal for fictional play.

Originally Posted by bk2bkjks

But to each his own...we may all have differant opinion's on this game on what it should but we can all agree it is a great game and the best out there.

I totally agree.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Montreal should not be winning the World Series.

Why not? The 1969 New York Mets shouldn't have won the World Series that year, but they did, thanks to a lot of luck working in their favour that season. Indeed, according to Phil Birnbaum's "Which Great Teams Were Just Lucky?" study in SABR's The Baseball Research Journal #34, the '69 Mets finished some 17 wins better than they should have.

[ashantewarrier]

Personally, I do not see the fun in replaying a season and wanting the outcome to match reality.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Why not? The 1969 New York Mets shouldn't have won the World Series that year, but they did, thanks to a lot of luck working in their favour that season. Indeed, according to Phil Birnbaum's "Which Great Teams Were Just Lucky?" study in SABR's The Baseball Research Journal #34, the '69 Mets finished some 17 wins better than they should have.

Can you point to a season other than the very first season of pro ball that a first year team won the championship?

At least the Mets had Seaver and Koosman.

Saying the Mets shouldn't have won it seems odd since they actually did. That must mean the formula used that says they shouldn't have won it must be flawed.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by ashantewarrier

Personally, I do not see the fun in replaying a season and wanting the outcome to match reality.

We don't need for it to match reality, but we want a reasonable alternative universe of what might have happened with the same players and teams.

The people who are really happy with the accuracy level are the fictional players, because they have no need to compare their results to reality.

I think OOTP has made a lot of progress for historical replayers, but there's a ways to go in the areas of pitching and defense. If Tom Seaver isn't one of the best pitchers in the league, there may be a problem. If none of the ERA leaders match up, there is a problem. Runs scored by each team tend to come in within the mathematical parameters that indicate an accurate simulation. Runs allowed do not.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Saying the Mets shouldn't have won it seems odd since they actually did. That must mean the formula used that says they shouldn't have won it must be flawed.

Birnbaum defined luck to be the following:

(1) The club's hitters have career years, playing better than their talent can support.
(2) The club's pitchers have career years, playing better than their talent can support.
(3) The club was more successful at turning base runners into runs.
(4) The club's opposition was less successful in turning base runners into runs.
(5) The club won more games than expected from its runs scored and runs allowed.

All of the above can be examined mathematically and estimates of wins gained or lost calcuated through appropriate formulas. The result, for the 1969 Mets, is that, were it not for the lucky items mentioned working in their favour, the club would have finished closer to 83-79. (The luckiest team, from 1960-2001 according to Birnbaum's analysis, was the 2001 Seattle Mariners, which finished 116-46, but adjusting for the lucky elements listed, it ought to have finished nearer 89-73.)

Birnbaum has published plenty of sabermetric studies and analyses over the years, with lots of statistics and math to back them up. I suggest reading the article for yourself. (Many of the past issues of The Baseball Research Journal are now available at SABR's web site as free PDF downloads.)

If the 1969 season was replayed ten times, how many times the Mets win it all ? Once? Three times? Eight times? How one chooses to answer that question will indicate just what one expects from a historical league in OOTP.

[swampdragon]

I would guess the Orioles would win it all more often than the Mets would, and that would reflect my feeling that the Mets were lucky. The Mets might not even win the division half the time. But in any simulation, Seaver should be a pitcher no one wants to face.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Birnbaum defined luck to be the following:

(1) The club's hitters have career years, playing better than their talent can support.
(2) The club's pitchers have career years, playing better than their talent can support.
(3) The club was more successful at turning base runners into runs.
(4) The club's opposition was less successful in turning base runners into runs.
(5) The club won more games than expected from its runs scored and runs allowed.

All of the above can be examined mathematically and estimates of wins gained or lost calcuated through appropriate formulas. The result, for the 1969 Mets, is that, were it not for the lucky items mentioned working in their favour, the club would have finished closer to 83-79. (The luckiest team, from 1960-2001 according to Birnbaum's analysis, was the 2001 Seattle Mariners, which finished 116-46, but adjusting for the lucky elements listed, it ought to have finished nearer 89-73.)

Birnbaum has published plenty of sabermetric studies and analyses over the years, with lots of statistics and math to back them up. I suggest reading the article for yourself. (Many of the past issues of The Baseball Research Journal are now available at SABR's web site as free PDF downloads.)

If the 1969 season was replayed ten times, how many times the Mets win it all ? Once? Three times? Eight times? How one chooses to answer that question will indicate just what one expects from a historical league in OOTP.

And what does math say the Expos record should have been? I know it doesn't say they could have won it all.

In the case of the '69 Mets, I believe Chicago, St. Louis and Pittsburgh could have all won the division, and my guess is in 10 tries the Cubs would win the most. They are currently leading the division in Action and I accept that because I feel IRL they should have won the division in '69. Everyone knows the Mets did something amazing, hence the team nickname "Amazin' Mets". By the way, that named was attached to them in 1969. They didn't need to wait around for some mathematician to tell them the team overachieved.

I don't think they would win more than once in 10 tries, if they won even once. I do expect them to finish in one of the top 4 slots in that division, same as any of the 4 top teams in that division.

I don't expect 94 wins and a championship from the Expos. Did you find a first year team that ever won a championship? If not, then my expectation that the '69 Expos should not win it seems pretty reasonable. A 50 win difference is a bit much.

I'd also like to thank Birnbaum for pointing out 5 very obvious things. One team outscores another, for whatever reason, they tend to win.

4 thumbs up for his profound observations.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I don't expect 94 wins and a championship from the Expos. Did you find a first year team that ever won a championship? If not, then my expectation that the '69 Expos should not win it seems pretty reasonable. A 50 win difference is a bit much.

Obvious question of the day:

Do the '69 Expos only have the actual roster of players it had that year? Or was there any sort of expansion draft held through the game's expansion draft feature? If it's the latter, the club may well have many more good players on it than it actually got through the real expansion draft.

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I'd also like to thank Birnbaum for pointing out 5 very obvious things. One team outscores another, for whatever reason, they tend to win.

Do tell me, how many of your baseball statisical analyses have been published in The Baseball Research Journal?

SABR publications currently online and available for free downloading:

The National Pastime
The Baseball Research Journal

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

And this is the fictional part of the game. When you get extreme "you never know" results in a historical "replay" it becomes fantasy and the names of the players don't matter so why bother using the historical names?

You said yourself, we know what really happened and for a lot of replayers it's that knowledge that is used to base how good a game is at a replay. I know it's how I have always tested a game. I use the same season for every game I try to see just how accurate it is or how the game engine works.

The "you never know" mindset is not a mindset that is actually attempting a replay at all.

The only way to see what I'm talking about is for people to check on Action BB. I didn't say they have to buy it and play it, though it would certainly clarify what my idea of a replay is, but just to read up on it.

I do believe that what some people are calling "historical replay" compared to what others such as me are calling "historical replay" is where the confusion in this entire replay discussion is coming from.

It's just the definition of "historical replay" which seems to be the crux of the issue here.

Saying OOTP is a "what if" or an "anything can happen" type of game is not my definition of a "replay" type of game. To me those are the definitions of a "fantasy" game.

I have never said OOTP is an accurate replay game ala Strat, Lance Haffner Baseball, two games I have played nor Diamond Mind, Action two games I've never played. It is only a game that lets you "replay" any season from baseball history that you want to play.

In my youth the best one could do was a game like Strat, there were no other alternatives. IE no career type games to play, at least that I know of.
I played a ton of Strat seasons and almost every one had players that didn't perform as expected and this was only playing a season with one team. I didn't have to scour an entire MLB season to find examples.

It's been a little over 40 years since my first Strat games were played. I can still see my '72 Oakland A's season. Joe Rudi was the only A's player to hit over .300. He hit .305, a big deal back in that era. Played the '72 season three times over the summer his highest BA for me was .275.

Using the 1980 Strat set I played a season with the Orioles. Ken Singleton IRL hit .304 with 24 hrs. At the all star game he had ~4-5 hrs for me. IIRC he ended up with 12 or 13. So he did get up to a closer to realistic pace after the break.

Of course played a '80 season with the Royals and George Brett with his .390 average. He never came close to that.

I was disappointed with all of those seasons in Strat because those guys were supposed to perform better. With OOTP I wouldn't blink an eye because the game is simulating real life.


For me the thing that makes OOTP great, as I've stated many times, is the variability aka the "you never know". How many players using OOTP's 2010 roster set would be complaining if Aramis Ramirez was performing for them the way he is performing for the Cubs IRL this year? These things happen every year to somebody and OOTP does a great job of producing this type of thing.

FWIW I think you've done the right thing playing Action, it gives you what you want. Others that want that should follow your lead IMHO. Can't for the life of me see any fun in playing a game like that in this day and age when a "real life type" simulation is available, but to each his own. If it's what you like more power to you, nothing wrong with that.

Just want to be crystal clear though that I have never said OOTP was an accurate replay game in the way Action, DM etc are. Anyone that I have ever told about OOTP has been told exactly what it is, a baseball simulation that takes a players skills and uses them to determine outcome like RL. You can play with real players and get realistic stats within real life probabilities but if you want Brett to hit .390 in 1980 or Rudi to hit .305 in 1972 within a 10-15 points(you pick the numbers if these are wrong) every time then OOTP is not the historical\real player game for you. Stick to the games that are built to produce intended stats instead of a game that is not.

There is no misunderstanding between us on what OOTP is\does compared to DM, Action. I think you've misunderstood me thinking I have said OOTP is like Action when I haven't.

One thing I'd be interested in seeing if you are ever sitting around looking for something to do. Have Action quick sim the '72 season and post Joe Rudi's stats. Or is there a demo available where I could do this?

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Obvious question of the day:

Do the '69 Expos only have the actual roster of players it had that year? Or was there any sort of expansion draft held through the game's expansion draft feature? If it's the latter, the club may well have many more good players on it than it actually got through the real expansion draft.

Actual players.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Do tell me, how many of your baseball statisical analyses have been published in The Baseball Research Journal?

SABR publications currently online and available for free downloading:

The National Pastime
The Baseball Research Journal

None since I don't need research to tell me whatever this research tells others.

Bill James and apparently Birnbaum have really mastered the art of stating things that most baseball fans already know and making it appear like this is some earth shaking discovery. So far I have seen nothing that James has come up with in his formulas that has altered anything I already knew about players or teams but apparently there are those such as James who are unable to see the obvious and need to develop some other way to figure out.

It just tickles me how James and his fans all act like something super exciting has been discovered and they can't wait to share it with the world, I guess in an attempt to try to impress everyone with how intelligent they think they are. It's really quite hilarious.

Basically all they are doing is taking the basic statistical data and creating formulas using that data to come up with another "stat" to explain what the basic stat(s) they used are saying. Some of us stupid people don't need to go through all that to understand what we're looking at.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I have never said OOTP is an accurate replay game ala Strat, Lance Haffner Baseball, two games I have played nor Diamond Mind, Action two games I've never played. It is only a game that lets you "replay" any season from baseball history that you want to play.

In my youth the best one could do was a game like Strat, there were no other alternatives. IE no career type games to play, at least that I know of.
I played a ton of Strat seasons and almost every one had players that didn't perform as expected and this was only playing a season with one team. I didn't have to scour an entire MLB season to find examples.

It's been a little over 40 years since my first Strat games were played. I can still see my '72 Oakland A's season. Joe Rudi was the only A's player to hit over .300. He hit .305, a big deal back in that era. Played the '72 season three times over the summer his highest BA for me was .275.

Using the 1980 Strat set I played a season with the Orioles. Ken Singleton IRL hit .304 with 24 hrs. At the all star game he had ~4-5 hrs for me. IIRC he ended up with 12 or 13. So he did get up to a closer to realistic pace after the break.

Of course played a '80 season with the Royals and George Brett with his .390 average. He never came close to that.

I was disappointed with all of those seasons in Strat because those guys were supposed to perform better. With OOTP I wouldn't blink an eye because the game is simulating real life.


For me the thing that makes OOTP great, as I've stated many times, is the variability aka the "you never know". How many players using OOTP's 2010 roster set would be complaining if Aramis Ramirez was performing for them the way he is performing for the Cubs IRL this year? These things happen every year to somebody and OOTP does a great job of producing this type of thing.

FWIW I think you've done the right thing playing Action, it gives you what you want. Others that want that should follow your lead IMHO. Can't for the life of me see any fun in playing a game like that in this day and age when a "real life type" simulation is available, but to each his own. If it's what you like more power to you, nothing wrong with that.

Just want to be crystal clear though that I have never said OOTP was an accurate replay game in the way Action, DM etc are. Anyone that I have ever told about OOTP has been told exactly what it is, a baseball simulation that takes a players skills and uses them to determine outcome like RL. You can play with real players and get realistic stats within real life probabilities but if you want Brett to hit .390 in 1980 or Rudi to hit .305 in 1972 within a 10-15 points(you pick the numbers if these are wrong) every time then OOTP is not the historical\real player game for you. Stick to the games that are built to produce intended stats instead of a game that is not.

There is no misunderstanding between us on what OOTP is\does compared to DM, Action. I think you've misunderstood me thinking I have said OOTP is like Action when I haven't.

One thing I'd be interested in seeing if you are ever sitting around looking for something to do. Have Action quick sim the '72 season and post Joe Rudi's stats. Or is there a demo available where I could do this?

All I have been saying is that FOR ME, OOTP doesn't cut it for what I look for in a replay. I understand that many others have no problem with it. I am not saying OOTP sucks or anything like that. Just for me it's great only for the fictional world, especially the GM stuff.

I'm not attacking anyone for how they play or their opinion on the historical aspect. I am just stating my opinion for how I play.

When people start a thread asking about how good the game is for historical I don't think it would be fair for them not to hear as many opinions, pro and can, as they can. I figure they are smart enough to realize everyone is just stating their opinion based on how they like to play. Of course, the tricky thing about those kind of threads is no one knows exactly what the OP expects from a game.

It just seems that when I do give my opinion or someone else who feels the same way I do expresses their view, the thread turns into a "you're wrong and we're right" type of thread and end off having to explain over and over again why I feel the way I do even though it's well documented.

Anyway, I am not attacking anyone and I hope it isn't being taken personal when I respond to someone. I am trying to clarify myself, that's all.

I don't remember ever telling anyone that how they play is wrong or stupid because I don't feel that way.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Sweed

One thing I'd be interested in seeing if you are ever sitting around looking for something to do. Have Action quick sim the '72 season and post Joe Rudi's stats. Or is there a demo available where I could do this?

I have just 3 seasons....1901, 1969 & 1970. I think Knockahoma has 1972 though. You might want to ask him.

[Jah]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I have never said OOTP is an accurate replay game ala Strat, Lance Haffner Baseball, two games I have played nor Diamond Mind, Action two games I've never played. It is only a game that lets you "replay" any season from baseball history that you want to play.

In my youth the best one could do was a game like Strat, there were no other alternatives. IE no career type games to play, at least that I know of.
I played a ton of Strat seasons and almost every one had players that didn't perform as expected and this was only playing a season with one team. I didn't have to scour an entire MLB season to find examples.

It's been a little over 40 years since my first Strat games were played. I can still see my '72 Oakland A's season. Joe Rudi was the only A's player to hit over .300. He hit .305, a big deal back in that era. Played the '72 season three times over the summer his highest BA for me was .275.

Using the 1980 Strat set I played a season with the Orioles. Ken Singleton IRL hit .304 with 24 hrs. At the all star game he had ~4-5 hrs for me. IIRC he ended up with 12 or 13. So he did get up to a closer to realistic pace after the break.

Of course played a '80 season with the Royals and George Brett with his .390 average. He never came close to that.

I was disappointed with all of those seasons in Strat because those guys were supposed to perform better. With OOTP I wouldn't blink an eye because the game is simulating real life.


For me the thing that makes OOTP great, as I've stated many times, is the variability aka the "you never know". How many players using OOTP's 2010 roster set would be complaining if Aramis Ramirez was performing for them the way he is performing for the Cubs IRL this year? These things happen every year to somebody and OOTP does a great job of producing this type of thing.

FWIW I think you've done the right thing playing Action, it gives you what you want. Others that want that should follow your lead IMHO. Can't for the life of me see any fun in playing a game like that in this day and age when a "real life type" simulation is available, but to each his own. If it's what you like more power to you, nothing wrong with that.

Just want to be crystal clear though that I have never said OOTP was an accurate replay game in the way Action, DM etc are. Anyone that I have ever told about OOTP has been told exactly what it is, a baseball simulation that takes a players skills and uses them to determine outcome like RL. You can play with real players and get realistic stats within real life probabilities but if you want Brett to hit .390 in 1980 or Rudi to hit .305 in 1972 within a 10-15 points(you pick the numbers if these are wrong) every time then OOTP is not the historical\real player game for you. Stick to the games that are built to produce intended stats instead of a game that is not.

There is no misunderstanding between us on what OOTP is\does compared to DM, Action. I think you've misunderstood me thinking I have said OOTP is like Action when I haven't.

One thing I'd be interested in seeing if you are ever sitting around looking for something to do. Have Action quick sim the '72 season and post Joe Rudi's stats. Or is there a demo available where I could do this?

You're correct in your assessment of OOTP and historical play...however, Markus said this a couple of months prior to v11's release:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...81-post24.html

He's obviously interested in pursuing the DMB/Action/Strat market to some degree, to the point of claiming OOTP having "superior" replay output to DMB.

Keep in mind, contrary to what is stated over and over whenever this discussion comes up, those of us who partake in single-season replays aren't looking for an exact replay of history...we don't mind some variance as long as it's within the realm of reality.

Like Styx, I use OOTP for fictional play and Action for single-season replays. They're both really good at what they do best.

By the way, here's Joe Rudi's stats for one of my '72 season replays with Action. He hit .289 the other time I replayed '72...again, variance within the realm of reality.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

All I have been saying is that FOR ME, OOTP doesn't cut it for what I look for in a replay. I understand that many others have no problem with it. I am not saying OOTP sucks or anything like that. Just for me it's great only for the fictional world, especially the GM stuff.

I'm not attacking anyone for how they play or their opinion on the historical aspect. I am just stating my opinion for how I play.

When people start a thread asking about how good the game is for historical I don't think it would be fair for them not to hear as many opinions, pro and can, as they can. I figure they are smart enough to realize everyone is just stating their opinion based on how they like to play. Of course, the tricky thing about those kind of threads is no one knows exactly what the OP expects from a game.

It just seems that when I do give my opinion or someone else who feels the same way I do expresses their view, the thread turns into a "you're wrong and we're right" type of thread and end off having to explain over and over again why I feel the way I do even though it's well documented.

Anyway, I am not attacking anyone and I hope it isn't being taken personal when I respond to someone. I am trying to clarify myself, that's all.

I don't remember ever telling anyone that how they play is wrong or stupid because I don't feel that way.

Totally get what you are saying with regard to your definition of replay compared to mine and have no problem with it. Like you though, sometimes I think some of us get lumped into the "we're right, your wrong" group you are talking about when we don't belong there. Maybe I wasn't being put there but did post to clarify my position so as not to be misunderstood.



FWIW the only reason I even posted in this thread was because I had a similar experience to bk2bkjks and to say I started my baseball game playing in a similar fashion but at a time when table top games were the only choice and now play OOTP the same way he does with similar expectations and reasons why I love the game. Certainly wasn't intended to offend or say we are playing the "right" way.

[spitfire]

One thing I think it might do well to point out: OOTP is relying on the Lahmman database as an inexpensive way to have all of baseball history at your fingertips. I think it's always going to be extremely difficult, and probably impossible, for any game engine to take the data contained in the Lahmann and come up with the kind of accurate statistical replay that would interest someone like Styx. I don't know what Action does, but I know that the people who do season disks for DMB do thousands of runs through a given season, tweaking things like fielding ratings to get the best possible stats reproduction. There is always room for variance within the results, but the emphasis there is on the type of accuracy Styx talks about. Hard for any game using Lahmann to compete with a hand-tooled single-season disk done by people who know their stuff.

For what it's worth, I only play fictional with OOTP. DMB is still my game of choice when I want to "watch" the real guys in action. Action does look like an interesting game for historical too, but I'm not sure I want to go in another direction after all this time, with to cost of all the season disks to think about. It's kind of like chucking your PC and going Mac! I think OOTP excels in a fictional setting, where you don't have expectations of a player's performance based on his name.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Jah

You're correct in your assessment of OOTP and historical play...however, Markus said this a couple of months prior to v11's release:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...81-post24.html

He's obviously interested in pursuing the DMB/Action/Strat market to some degree, to the point of claiming OOTP having "superior" replay output to DMB.

Keep in mind, contrary to what is stated over and over whenever this discussion comes up, those of us who partake in single-season replays aren't looking for an exact replay of history...we don't mind some variance as long as it's within the realm of reality.

Like Styx, I use OOTP for fictional play and Action for single-season replays. They're both really good at what they do best.

By the way, here's Joe Rudi's stats for one of my '72 season replays with Action. He hit .289 the other time I replayed '72...again, variance within the realm of reality.

Thanks for posting the Rudi stats much closer than I ever got with Strat and dice.

Yeah, I think I have a good understanding along with many here, you and Styx included, what OOTP does.

I'm not trying to speak for Markus as I'm certainly not qualified, I can only give my opinion FWIW. If OOTP gives accurate stats to mimic a certain era that are as good or better than DM etc. then it comes down to what each player accepts as a reasonable range for individual performance to my way of thinking. What I may find acceptable you may not. If it's acceptable to me than Markus' claim may be accurate. If it's not acceptable than I may think he's way off base claiming to be as good or better than the other games.

In a 1969 historical replay(yes, Styx or definitions and expectations are very different) I could accept Harmon Killebrew having a year like Aramis Ramirez is in 2010 because to me it is possible even though not likely (as it was unlikely Ramirez would be doing now). Styx, you, and many others would not be able to accept this and that's fine. There is no right answer, there are only our opinions of what is acceptable to us which make Markus claim either correct or a stretch. We then can vote with our dollars on how well he delivered on his claim.

I've never played DM or Action but sometimes wonder if there are players of those games that feel somewhat constricted by the accuracy of the game. Maybe they would actually appreciate the extra variability that OOTP provides while still capturing the era being played?

[Jah]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Thanks for posting the Rudi stats much closer than I ever got with Strat and dice.

Yeah, I think I have a good understanding along with many here, you and Styx included, what OOTP does.

I'm not trying to speak for Markus as I'm certainly not qualified, I can only give my opinion FWIW. If OOTP gives accurate stats to mimic a certain era that are as good or better than DM etc. then it comes down to what each player accepts as a reasonable range for individual performance to my way of thinking. What I may find acceptable you may not. If it's acceptable to me than Markus' claim may be accurate. If it's not acceptable than I may think he's way off base claiming to be as good or better than the other games.

In a 1969 historical replay(yes, Styx or definitions and expectations are very different) I could accept Harmon Killebrew having a year like Aramis Ramirez is in 2010 because to me it is possible even though not likely (as it was unlikely Ramirez would be doing now). Styx, you, and many others would not be able to accept this and that's fine. There is no right answer, there are only our opinions of what is acceptable to us which make Markus claim either correct or a stretch. We then can vote with our dollars on how well he delivered on his claim.

I've never played DM or Action but sometimes wonder if there are players of those games that feel somewhat constricted by the accuracy of the game. Maybe they would actually appreciate the extra variability that OOTP provides while still capturing the era being played?

Sweed - This is an interesting discussion for sure. Part of my frustration over the years with attempting single-season replays with OOTP was having to tweak the settings endlessly just to get things right...with Action, I can pretty much play a season "out of the box" with realistic results. Also, with OOTP, there were some funky AI decisions occasionally...like top starters wasting away in the minors for the entire year (1974 Mike Cuellar comes to mind...in a year that he went 22-10 in real life...needless to say, it affected the O's season significantly).

In other OOTP replays, I had some truly awful teams winning their divisions, and even the World Series on occasion. Now I know some will say "anything can happen," but we're talking literally 55 or 60-win teams ending up with 30-35 additional wins compared to real life (with the SAME rosters)...those teams shouldn't be winning any pennants, no matter how many replays you attempt.

As for feeling constricted by the accuracy of a "replay" game (Action in my case), I've seen enough variance in the results to make each season replay interesting. The same teams don't win every time...but most of the good teams are good and the bad teams bad, with the occasional over- or under-achieving surprise (perhaps a .500 team doing a lot better in the replay)...but I've never seen something like the 1969 Expos winning their division. A 60-win team might win 70, but they ain't winnin' 90, that's for sure. This also holds true with the individual league leaders...most of the real-life league leaders will be up there, but you'll see some surprises as well...all within the realm of believability. No guys with 10 career wins suddenly winning 25 in one season...and no one who hit .250 for the year hitting .350 out of the blue (stuff I've seen on occasion in OOTP).

I guess it all comes down to personal preference and that's why we have different choices out there for the different ways we like to play. If I had massive amounts of free time to test different settings ad nauseam and micro-manage each team during an OOTP single-season replay, perhaps I would feel differently. I think the historical play has improved with each version in recent years, but it's still not there for me overall. Often with OOTP it just doesn't "feel" like the year I'm replaying...which is very important for the season replayer, IMHO.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Jah

Keep in mind, contrary to what is stated over and over whenever this discussion comes up, those of us who partake in single-season replays aren't looking for an exact replay of history...we don't mind some variance as long as it's within the realm of reality.

What's the definition of "within the realm of reality"? That is the critical question.

If we strip away the lucky things that happened for the Mets in 1969, they ought to finish closer to 83-79. Would you consider that record "within the realm of reality" on a team level?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Athings that most baseball fans already know and making it appear like this is some earth shaking discovery. So far I have seen nothing that James has come up with in his formulas that has altered anything I already knew about players or teams but apparently there are those such as James who are unable to see the obvious and need to develop some other way to figure out.

It just tickles me how James and his fans all act like something super exciting has been discovered and they can't wait to share it with the world, I guess in an attempt to try to impress everyone with how intelligent they think they are. It's really quite hilarious.

Basically all they are doing is taking the basic statistical data and creating formulas using that data to come up with another "stat" to explain what the basic stat(s) they used are saying. Some of us stupid people don't need to go through all that to understand what we're looking at.

The above sounds like sour grapes to me since they published their work, backed up by some detailed mathematical and statistical analysis, and recieved notice for their work. While you... haven't.

It's easy to say you knew all this stuff too. How about showing us your work that proves it?