Observation that might be important...

[BigCity]

Having played OOTP for many many seasons like many of you, you tend to see things now and then that aren't critical - but feel "off" somehow.

A few years back I noticed there seems to be too many "ties" each season for Pitcher Wins, so I decided to start tracking all my various played seasons and can now summarize my results as follows....

MLB:
212 seasons (AL+NL*106 years) have had 59 seasons with one or more pitchers tied for Wins.=28%

My various OOTP leagues:
189 seasons have had 87 seasons with one or more pitchers tied for Wins.=46%

As I said, this isn't critical, but it does suggest that in OOTP the pitchers "overall" are not as dominant as they have been in real life. The issue might be a few pitchers need to dominate more or it might be the vast majority need to dominate a little less = not sure which.

Since this is an OOTP14 thread and we are throwing ideas out to improve the game as well as new ideas, I thought I would throw it out for conversation

[sc_superstar]

Thats a very random observation and one that probably isnt modeled, just random chance.

I've had default MLB quickstarts that favour hitters and some that end up favouring pictchers, it all depends on the draft classes and random talent changes

[tomwolf2008]

I'm sorry but I don't really see the connection between "in OOTP pitchers tends to tie for win more" and "in OOTP pitchers are less dominate"...

Besides...Wins are not exactly a good stats to illustrate pitcher dominance.

[hfield007]

At the most I can see is just a historically unfortunate pairing of non top tier offenses and top notch pitchers.

[Questdog]

no...this is a valid point.....

In OOTP there is less randomness than real life and so results tend not to be as scattered, with more players bunched in the middle in most categories.

And when a player DOES dominate in OOTP, he dominates too consistently....

[RchW]

Originally Posted by BigCity

Having played OOTP for many many seasons like many of you, you tend to see things now and then that aren't critical - but feel "off" somehow.

A few years back I noticed there seems to be too many "ties" each season for Pitcher Wins, so I decided to start tracking all my various played seasons and can now summarize my results as follows....

MLB:
212 seasons (AL+NL*106 years) have had 59 seasons with one or more pitchers tied for Wins.=28%

My various OOTP leagues:
189 seasons have had 87 seasons with one or more pitchers tied for Wins.=46%

As I said, this isn't critical, but it does suggest that in OOTP the pitchers "overall" are not as dominant as they have been in real life. The issue might be a few pitchers need to dominate more or it might be the vast majority need to dominate a little less = not sure which.

Since this is an OOTP14 thread and we are throwing ideas out to improve the game as well as new ideas, I thought I would throw it out for conversation

I don't think pitchers tying for wins correlates in any way with pitcher dominance. Pitcher wins are not always indicative of dominance, ask Felix Hernandez.

Your conclusion is the opposite of my observations. Pitchers in OOTP appear to be more dominant to me because they (the good ones) pick up more wins/start than real life pitchers. I have speculated that SP in OOTP are too healthy and in general get more wins when on and less losses because the AI pulls them early when they are down.

Many real life pitchers play at less than 100% for significant parts of the season. This probably accounts for a lot of no decisions. In OOTP pitchers are essentially binary. They pitch at 100% or they don't pitch.

Check decisions per start in MLB (recent years) vs a similar OOTP league. I'd bet there is a noticeable difference.

[hfield007]

Originally Posted by RchW

I don't think pitchers tying for wins correlates in any way with pitcher dominance. Pitcher wins are not always indicative of dominance, ask Felix Hernandez.

Your conclusion is the opposite of my observations. Pitchers in OOTP appear to be more dominant to me because they (the good ones) pick up more wins/start than real life pitchers. I have speculated that SP in OOTP are too healthy and in general get more wins when on and less losses because the AI pulls them early when they are down.

Many real life pitchers play at less than 100% for significant parts of the season. This probably accounts for a lot of no decisions. In OOTP pitchers are essentially binary. They pitch at 100% or they don't pitch.

Check decisions per start in MLB (recent years) vs a similar OOTP league. I'd bet there is a noticeable difference.

I never even thought of this. I'm wondering if his league is using the modern day realistic injury setting or something else.

[BigCity]

My point, better stated, is that there seems to be a wider spread of "win-success" in real life than in OOTP. A 28% to 46% difference is somewhat significant - to say in an OOTP league pitchers tie for the win lead almost half the time does suggest they are clumped together more than in real life.

I'm aware that "wins" stat may not be part of the cause-of-the-effect, but it is a result that does not reflect historical stats. It is just "odd" when you have 2+ pitchers tied with the same number of wins twice as much as it happened in real life.

Clarification; I play historical fictional leagues between 1901 and present with game settings reflective of the years being played. The 189 seasons I pulled out to assemble are a comparable size and time period database to the 212 major league seasons it is being compared with.

All I am suggesting is that a 28% to 46% difference is significant enough to warrant discussion. It is just plain "odd" to see pitchers tied in Wins almost every other year.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by BigCity

My point, better stated, is that there seems to be a wider spread of "win-success" in real life than in OOTP. A 28% to 46% difference is somewhat significant - to say in an OOTP league pitchers tie for the win lead almost half the time does suggest they are clumped together more than in real life.

I'm aware that "wins" stat may not be part of the cause-of-the-effect, but it is a result that does not reflect historical stats. It is just "odd" when you have 2+ pitchers tied with the same number of wins twice as much as it happened in real life.

Clarification; I play historical fictional leagues between 1901 and present with game settings reflective of the years being played. The 189 seasons I pulled out to assemble are a comparable size and time period database to the 212 major league seasons it is being compared with.

All I am suggesting is that a 28% to 46% difference is significant enough to warrant discussion. It is just plain "odd" to see pitchers tied in Wins almost every other year.

Actually I have a question regarding your calculations. Does the league you played out has multiple subleagues? If they do, did you calculate each subleague seperately?

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by Questdog

no...this is a valid point.....

In OOTP there is less randomness than real life and so results tend not to be as scattered, with more players bunched in the middle in most categories.

And when a player DOES dominate in OOTP, he dominates too consistently....

Well if the issue is valid and reason is what you stated here, then this is pretty much a no-solution problem since the game is programmed by human and it certainly has some unavoidable bias in it.

[andymac]

There tends to much less team dominance in OOTP than IRL. I would think that would contribute more to the wins ties than player performance distribution.

There are a number of reasons for the team dominance issues which have been discussed before.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andymac

There tends to much less team dominance in OOTP than IRL.

This is true for some league setups but not for all of them.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

This is true for some league setups but not for all of them.

I would say that there is going to be less team domination in any OOTP setup than there would be in a real life version of that setup. This is just the nature of having teams controlled by pretty much the same AI. The issue brought up in the OP does not exist in online leagues.

[VanillaGorilla]

I am quite certain that the OP is using a low (something lower than the recommended "High" setting) and, lo(!) and behold, by introducing unrealistic injury rates the user gets unrealistic output....though I do commend the OP for doing the digging for his comparison.

For SP, the Win is a far from useless stat. Any pitcher that leads his league in Ws made a lot of starts and pitched a lot of innings for his club. Does that make him the best pitcher in the league? Certainly not. But the SP W total gives you a better one-stop shop insight into his season's value than any rate stat, when that total is at, or near, the top of the league.

A pitcher in today's era that wins 20 had an excellent season. He took the hill and stayed healthy and was a valuable asset to his team.

The pitcher that stays healthy in a injury supressed simulation setting is not as valuable as he is in RL.

This incidence of ties for league W leader, which is nearly twice that of RL results, is not an indication of some messed up talent distribution or some buggy code execution in OOTP. Rather, it is indicative of what is expected to happen when you have pitchers staying healthier than they did in RL.

Just as high win totals give you an idea about IP and GS, the OP's account of ties for league leaders in Wins let's you know that injuries are set to a low level for his league.

[hfield007]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

For SP, the Win is a far from useless stat. Any pitcher that leads his league in Ws made a lot of starts and pitched a lot of innings for his club. Does that make him the best pitcher in the league? Certainly not. But the SP W total gives you a better one-stop shop insight into his season's value than any rate stat, when that total is at, or near, the top of the league.

Just remember, Russ Ortiz led the NL with 21 wins in 2003