300 wins?

giantsfan777 · 07-23-2013, 06:39 PM

Hey everyone,

During the modern era there have been 14 pitchers who have won 300 games or more (I count Grover Cleveland Alexander 'cause he pitched over half his seasons after 1920). In the present day game, we may not see many, if any, more 300 game winners. So it is quite accurate for the game not to spit too many of these out over a 100 year time frame. Nevertheless, I want to see about the number we've seen in the nearly 100 years of the modern era.

But I can't seem to get the formula right. I've tried tweaking the "strategy" settings, by setting them all to "normal," but that doesn't seem to make much difference in the numbers that I get. I do play with the aging set to .250 for both batters and pitchers, which I feel renders more realistic (or at least more fun) results; and that should produce a lot more 300 gamers. I can't seem to find the right cocktail of tweaks to get me over the threshold of even producing more than two 300 game winners.

So the question is, what am I missing? How can I increase the number of 300 game winners while not skewing the other results horribly?

Bluenoser · 07-23-2013, 06:50 PM

What I generally do in fictional leagues is set pitcher stamina to high and go with a 4 man rotation default, normal for relievers and closers.

I also set pinch hit for pitchers to normal.

This tends to give me the right amount (although what the "right" amount is can be debated), at least in comparison to real life.

I've done it with a 5 man rotation the odd time, and gotten good results, but I like playing with 4 man rotations for the most part. A little testing on your part should help you find the settings that fit your needs though.

scott1964 · 07-23-2013, 06:58 PM

Here are the top pitchers from my league.

giantsfan777 · 07-23-2013, 07:13 PM

That's awesome scott1964.

What were the settings that you used?

RchW · 07-23-2013, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giantsfan777

Hey everyone,

During the modern era there have been 14 pitchers who have won 300 games or more (I count Grover Cleveland Alexander 'cause he pitched over half his seasons after 1920). In the present day game, we may not see many, if any, more 300 game winners. So it is quite accurate for the game not to spit too many of these out over a 100 year time frame. Nevertheless, I want to see about the number we've seen in the nearly 100 years of the modern era.

But I can't seem to get the formula right. I've tried tweaking the "strategy" settings, by setting them all to "normal," but that doesn't seem to make much difference in the numbers that I get. I do play with the aging set to .250 for both batters and pitchers, which I feel renders more realistic (or at least more fun) results; and that should produce a lot more 300 gamers. I can't seem to find the right cocktail of tweaks to get me over the threshold of even producing more than two 300 game winners.

So the question is, what am I missing? How can I increase the number of 300 game winners while not skewing the other results horribly?

The pitchers don't necessarily have to be better they need to stick around long enough to get wins. I've had decades in my long time fictional with dominant pitchers. See below

scott1964 · 07-23-2013, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giantsfan777

That's awesome scott1964.

What were the settings that you used?

Everything was straight out of the box settings. The only thing I did was make sure the big names got their time in. Which meant my teams had a big name or two or three

(Johnson, Mathewson, Cy Young) And a few obscure pitchers make the cut.

giantsfan777 · 07-23-2013, 08:37 PM

RchW: What were the settings you used to get those results? I have my both of my age settings at .250, and I thought that was low. Do you set yours lower?

scott1964: I don't really want to have to babysit my leagues to get these results. You did get great results, but that's not how I want to get there.

RchW · 07-23-2013, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giantsfan777

RchW: What were the settings you used to get those results? I have my both of my age settings at .250, and I thought that was low. Do you set yours lower?

scott1964: I don't really want to have to babysit my leagues to get these results. You did get great results, but that's not how I want to get there.

Nothing to do with aging. Mine are always around default. Combination of stamina use of relievers Start highest rested etc.

I have to ask how you got the impression that scott1964's straight out of the box settings constitute babysitting.

I'd say that's the inverse.

giantsfan777 · 07-23-2013, 11:31 PM

"The only thing I did was make sure the big names got their time in. Which meant my teams had a big name or two or three (Johnson, Mathewson, Cy Young) And a few obscure pitchers make the cut."

Am I wrong in thinking that this would constitute babysitting? I admit that I might be reading this wrong, but wouldn't that mean that you'd have to make sure all the "big names" were well positioned to win their 300+ games?

To me, and of course we all play differently, the game should be able to auto-pilot sim X number of years and spit out Y number of people above a certain threshold, with a fair amount of wiggle room in that Y value. Indeed, this sort of analysis would be the gold standard for determining whether the game is actually simulating reality or not. My reasoning is that when I settle in to play the heck out of this thing with one team for a long period of time, I don't want to be disappointed with results that depart too far from what I could reasonably expect from reality.

That last sentence has carefully chosen wording because I want to emphasize that I'm not expecting perfection, just a reasonable approximation of it.

nebradska · 07-23-2013, 11:43 PM

I think what happens is that OOTP is very good at generating players along a certain scale of increasing talent, but it doesn't have the ability to create that "once in a generation" kind of player, and not just in fictional. In historical, even the likes of Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron rarely reach the lofty heights that their real world counterparts did.

Bad thing? Maybe not. It's easy to say that there were so many factors that went into these legendary careers that either can't be replicated or are just plain different in your league.

VanillaGorilla · 07-24-2013, 12:09 AM

In order to get 300 wins, a pitcher need starts....600 of them.

No pitcher, other than Lefty Grove, has entered the league after 1920 and won 300 games without 600 starts.

Of the 23 players that have started 600 games, only 6 have not won 300 games (Roberts, Kaat, Tanana, Moyer, Blyleven, and Tommy John...who started 700).

The simple answer to the question of "How do you get a league to represent historical achievements over the last 100 years?" is to use the historical settings starting in 1913.

This includes number of teams, and historical evolution of expansion (start with 30 teams in 1914, or have 16 teams through 2012 won't get you what you want).

07-23-2013, 06:39 PM	#1
giantsfan777 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 48	300 wins? Hey everyone, During the modern era there have been 14 pitchers who have won 300 games or more (I count Grover Cleveland Alexander 'cause he pitched over half his seasons after 1920). In the present day game, we may not see many, if any, more 300 game winners. So it is quite accurate for the game not to spit too many of these out over a 100 year time frame. Nevertheless, I want to see about the number we've seen in the nearly 100 years of the modern era. But I can't seem to get the formula right. I've tried tweaking the "strategy" settings, by setting them all to "normal," but that doesn't seem to make much difference in the numbers that I get. I do play with the aging set to .250 for both batters and pitchers, which I feel renders more realistic (or at least more fun) results; and that should produce a lot more 300 gamers. I can't seem to find the right cocktail of tweaks to get me over the threshold of even producing more than two 300 game winners. So the question is, what am I missing? How can I increase the number of 300 game winners while not skewing the other results horribly? Last edited by giantsfan777; 07-23-2013 at 06:40 PM.

07-23-2013, 06:58 PM	#3
scott1964 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver Posts: 5,622	Here are the top pitchers from my league. __________________ This just feels more like waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. PETA.....People Eating Tasty Animals.

07-23-2013, 11:31 PM	#9
giantsfan777 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 48	"The only thing I did was make sure the big names got their time in. Which meant my teams had a big name or two or three (Johnson, Mathewson, Cy Young) And a few obscure pitchers make the cut." Am I wrong in thinking that this would constitute babysitting? I admit that I might be reading this wrong, but wouldn't that mean that you'd have to make sure all the "big names" were well positioned to win their 300+ games? To me, and of course we all play differently, the game should be able to auto-pilot sim X number of years and spit out Y number of people above a certain threshold, with a fair amount of wiggle room in that Y value. Indeed, this sort of analysis would be the gold standard for determining whether the game is actually simulating reality or not. My reasoning is that when I settle in to play the heck out of this thing with one team for a long period of time, I don't want to be disappointed with results that depart too far from what I could reasonably expect from reality. That last sentence has carefully chosen wording because I want to emphasize that I'm not expecting perfection, just a reasonable approximation of it. Last edited by giantsfan777; 07-23-2013 at 11:33 PM.

07-23-2013, 06:50 PM	#2
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 14,207	What I generally do in fictional leagues is set pitcher stamina to high and go with a 4 man rotation default, normal for relievers and closers. I also set pinch hit for pitchers to normal. This tends to give me the right amount (although what the "right" amount is can be debated), at least in comparison to real life. I've done it with a 5 man rotation the odd time, and gotten good results, but I like playing with 4 man rotations for the most part. A little testing on your part should help you find the settings that fit your needs though.

07-23-2013, 07:13 PM	#4
giantsfan777 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 48	That's awesome scott1964. What were the settings that you used?

07-23-2013, 08:37 PM	#7
giantsfan777 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 48	RchW: What were the settings you used to get those results? I have my both of my age settings at .250, and I thought that was low. Do you set yours lower? scott1964: I don't really want to have to babysit my leagues to get these results. You did get great results, but that's not how I want to get there.

07-23-2013, 11:43 PM	#10
nebradska Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Illinois Posts: 229	I think what happens is that OOTP is very good at generating players along a certain scale of increasing talent, but it doesn't have the ability to create that "once in a generation" kind of player, and not just in fictional. In historical, even the likes of Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron rarely reach the lofty heights that their real world counterparts did. Bad thing? Maybe not. It's easy to say that there were so many factors that went into these legendary careers that either can't be replicated or are just plain different in your league.

07-24-2013, 12:09 AM	#11
VanillaGorilla All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 1,371	In order to get 300 wins, a pitcher need starts....600 of them. No pitcher, other than Lefty Grove, has entered the league after 1920 and won 300 games without 600 starts. Of the 23 players that have started 600 games, only 6 have not won 300 games (Roberts, Kaat, Tanana, Moyer, Blyleven, and Tommy John...who started 700). The simple answer to the question of "How do you get a league to represent historical achievements over the last 100 years?" is to use the historical settings starting in 1913. This includes number of teams, and historical evolution of expansion (start with 30 teams in 1914, or have 16 teams through 2012 won't get you what you want).