The Annual Settings Thread

[Spanish Lefty]

Originally Posted by Doc_Brown

Some interesting stuff there Spanish Lefty. Always irked me a little when a guy got to early 30's and then fell off the cliff. Now I didn't want every guy playing on and being useful until they were 40+ but a few would be good.

Just for fun...

+4 WAR players 30 or above

- Pitchers: 2029 - 3; 2028 - 4; 2027 - 4; real life 2015 - 4
- Batters: 2029 - 17; 2028 - 12; 2027 - 13 real life 2015: 9

OOTP - Fangraphs WAR correction
- Harper 2015: 9.3 / 9.5
- Arenado 2015: 4.9 / 4.5
- Duda 2015: 2.9 / 3.1

So let's say it works fine

[asheft]

Well I must say I've been skeptical of those calling for tweaking the development or aging settings, but after seeing the data that you provided, I'm a little more convinced that doing so may actually be realistic (as opposed to a byproduct of observation bias). I'm definitely considering modifying them now.

Edit: also I'd like to see the developers response to this, and whether the default settings are being considered for change now

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Cod

Isn't that a good way for new "Stats only" players to get started though? This method would allow you to ease into the new way of playing instead of going cold turkey. I know some people are all or none when it comes to stats, but I think a lot of people would benefit with an easier transition.

No. If you have advance knowledge or expectations it simply doesn't work and you don't learn how to play stats only.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by iBrandon

I was thinking of simming 5-10 years down and I don't know nearly as much about MLB players as i do the NFL. I know the stars and some below, but my mlb knowledge is lacking a bit. .

You'd be much better off doing it with purely fictional players in an MLB setup. Create a 2000 historical league and then sim forward 15 years with historical rookies off, so that you get game-generated and no historical players, amd then start in 2016. That would work.

[progen]

As someone mentioned earlier, whenever the subject of "stats only" comes up, it does make for numerous postings and a good read overall. I used to be in upwards of 7 or 8 leagues at a time, but when I started playing solo, and stats only, I dropped out of all but one of my leagues, which was stats only. And now, I just play solo all together. I like to go at my own pace, and to each his own on how you play the game, but I've just found that stats only keeps me much more interested in my game. In the old days, I would play in my universe for 9-10 seasons, get bored, and move on. Now, with stats only, I'm usually around 20-25 seasons, and currently working on 28 in one game. And if I get bored with one team, or win a World Series, I then create two expansion teams, and take over a team, and go at it again, but with a totally different philosophy on building a winner!

And I don't use ratings for anything, included speed/running. I simply look at stolen bases, and caught stealing to make a judgment there, and at times triples. I'm an old guy, and I loved the 80's, especially the Cardinals teams under Herzog, with Vince Coleman and company. Speed just causes chaos for the other team, and sad how that has nearly gone out of the game. Now, it's either a home run or a strikeout. A bit of an exaggeration of course, but you get my gist. Still love the game no matter how it's played though, but I find it interesting that the Royals last season had the second lowest HR total in the AL, and the least amount of strikeouts by far. Someday teams will realize that good things do happen when you put the ball in play. So maybe the trend will change sooner than later. Who knows!

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by asheft

Well I must say I've been skeptical of those calling for tweaking the development or aging settings, but after seeing the data that you provided, I'm a little more convinced that doing so may actually be realistic (as opposed to a byproduct of observation bias). I'm definitely considering modifying them now.

Edit: also I'd like to see the developers response to this, and whether the default settings are being considered for change now

I'm going to try them in a sim–only league. If I get the same results that Spanish Lefty did, then I will be using them from now on.

[highandoutside]

You'll be sure to report back, Wolf?

[The Wolf]

And for those of you who have not tried stats-only, have you noticed all of the positive testimonials from satisfied users in this thread?

GIVE STATS-ONLY A TRY. You may never want to go back.

[the_Jewtalian]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And for those of you who have not tried stats-only, have you noticed all of the positive testimonials from satisfied users in this thread?

GIVE STATS-ONLY A TRY. You may never want to go back.

How do you handle the draft (rule 5 and amateur) and minor league promotion/demotions? There are so many players to check scouting reports of, how do you know what subset to rigorously check, and how do you keep track of all your potential draftees, promotions/demotions?

[Spanish Lefty]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And for those of you who have not tried stats-only, have you noticed all of the positive testimonials from satisfied users in this thread?

GIVE STATS-ONLY A TRY. You may never want to go back.

I have tried it and it's exhausting because of all the reading you have to do with the scouting reports. I mean, scouts still use de 20-80 scale or the 2-8. For me, putting the 2-8 scale potential with very low accuracy is as real as it gets.

Then, the "stats only" is more an approach. You have to realize that the performance is given by stats and not ratings, so 99% of the decisions are still made by the performance. Still, if the guy is a scouted 8-8-8 contact-power-eye, you maybe give him 600 more PAs before shopping him or trying to replace him.

That's the way the game works for me

[Silent_Thunder]

Originally Posted by Spanish Lefty

You have to realize that the performance is given by stats and not ratings, so 99% of the decisions are still made by the performance.

But that's not true at all. You know that 8/8/8 player who bats .220 is just getting screwed by the RNG, and is still a Star caliber player, and that if you just leave him in as long as he keeps those ratings, he'll eventually bounce back. It's like when I play the sports tabletop game Bloodbowl, even if I keep rolling snakeeyes, I'm gonna try to block with my best piece, because I know its the dice that are bad, not his modifiers.

Plus, as I mentioned before, the problem is very low scouting accuracy isn't actually that off the mark. Here's a selection of players of V Low and 100% Accuracy on the 20-80 in the Yankees Farm Sytem using the OSA ratings.

100%

V. Low


And again on the 1-100 scale.





Notice how they are nearly identical?

On the other hand, I'm not going to agree with Wolf's crusade against using stats only in a real MLB save, as truth be told after a couple years the dev engine has taken everything so far off the rails you're only crippling yourself by going "But he's Ortiz! He HAS to be a good hitter still.. right?" as you watch those averages fall off a cliff. Plus despite taking a bit away from the stats only experience, there's something to be said about seeing how young up and comers "really" pan out.

But again, to reiterate my point, despite what others might say, the problem isn't the concept of ratings. Ratings should be a tool you can use to look at players in the way a GM would. The problem is the ratings are completely, utterly pinpoint accurate, when they should be a graphical scouting report. Wolf may push for stats only to be an actual game option, I just want ratings to be properly unreliable.

The obvious comparison I can make is to Football Manager, which uses a 1-20 scale. Here's what a scouted profile looks like there. Notice how my scouts are saying things like 14-17, they aren't sure because they haven't spent much time yet with the player. Granted this profile is an extreme example, as I'm a lower league team with limited resources and this is just what we've grapsed by playing against them, but the idea is the point.

Originally Posted by the_Jewtalian

How do you handle the draft (rule 5 and amateur) and minor league promotion/demotions? There are so many players to check scouting reports of, how do you know what subset to rigorously check, and how do you keep track of all your potential draftees, promotions/demotions?

For promotions/demotions I look at the quick and dirty statlines on the roster screen like so.



Drafting is a bit of a hassle, but they do generate with made up stats that can sorta help before you look deeper, or if you set feeder leagues up properly you'll have a min of 4 years of stats, sometimes 8 to work with. With a feeder league, the big thing to watch for is someone who gets better every season. Also shortlisting your key prospects is important, as on the any list screen their name becomes ALL CAPS.

Now to settings, I'll add that I usually bump player aging down to .950 and TCR to 110. It's not that much at all, but is just a slight change in a good direction without ruining things.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Spanish Lefty

I have tried it and it's exhausting because of all the reading you have to do with the scouting reports. I mean, scouts still use de 20-80 scale or the 2-8. For me, putting the 2-8 scale potential with very low accuracy is as real as it gets.

Then, the "stats only" is more an approach. You have to realize that the performance is given by stats and not ratings, so 99% of the decisions are still made by the performance. Still, if the guy is a scouted 8-8-8 contact-power-eye, you maybe give him 600 more PAs before shopping him or trying to replace him.

That's the way the game works for me.

Read what Silent Thunder wrote carefully.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by the_Jewtalian

How do you handle the draft (rule 5 and amateur) and minor league promotion/demotions? There are so many players to check scouting reports of, how do you know what subset to rigorously check, and how do you keep track of all your potential draftees, promotions/demotions?

I keep notes (on a spreadsheet). Just like a real GM.

[Spanish Lefty]

Originally Posted by Silent_Thunder

But that's not true at all. You know that 8/8/8 player who bats .220 is just getting screwed by the RNG, and is still a Star caliber player, and that if you just leave him in as long as he keeps those ratings, he'll eventually bounce back. It's like when I play the sports tabletop game Bloodbowl, even if I keep rolling snakeeyes, I'm gonna try to block with my best piece, because I know its the dice that are bad, not his modifiers.

Plus, as I mentioned before, the problem is very low scouting accuracy isn't actually that off the mark. Here's a selection of players of V Low and 100% Accuracy on the 20-80 in the Yankees Farm Sytem using the OSA ratings.

Notice how they are nearly identical?

On the other hand, I'm not going to agree with Wolf's crusade against using stats only in a real MLB save, as truth be told after a couple years the dev engine has taken everything so far off the rails you're only crippling yourself by going "But he's Ortiz! He HAS to be a good hitter still.. right?" as you watch those averages fall off a cliff. Plus despite taking a bit away from the stats only experience, there's something to be said about seeing how young up and comers "really" pan out.

But again, to reiterate my point, despite what others might say, the problem isn't the concept of ratings. Ratings should be a tool you can use to look at players in the way a GM would. The problem is the ratings are completely, utterly pinpoint accurate, when they should be a graphical scouting report. Wolf may push for stats only to be an actual game option, I just want ratings to be properly unreliable.

The obvious comparison I can make is to Football Manager, which uses a 1-20 scale. Here's what a scouted profile looks like there. Notice how my scouts are saying things like 14-17, they aren't sure because they haven't spent much time yet with the player. Granted this profile is an extreme example, as I'm a lower league team with limited resources and this is just what we've grapsed by playing against them, but the idea is the point.

Thanks Thunder. Wow Football manager has changed since the last time I played

I share your point of view in that the scouting system should change or give the option to put it more difficult. For instance: no players scouted when you start a league. Day-to-day "request scouting reports" and real "very low accuracy".

Anyway, with low accuracy, for players below 23 y/o, the scouting report from my scout and OSA are usually very different. You have to draft taking stats into account.

Regarding the bounce-back if you have the skills, I don't think the same. I've seen Kris Bryant with 8/8/8 stats from my scout and OSA hit no more than 20HR per season in his career, 8-defensive players with negative ZR and below 30y/o, Brett Lawrie failing to perform over and over although he has good ratings, and very long etcetera.

There are visible ratings and I guess there are ratings we don't see, some kind of "performance" ratings associated to confidence and other troubles that make a player not perform as he "should" according to the visible ones.

That's why stats are still the first thing to look up, but I just say that without the basic numbers in very low accuracy, for me the game becomes very demanding having to read the scouting report.

[The Wolf]

We stats-only guys are trying to make it more of a simulation and less of a game, so of course it takes more time to do the same things like a GM in stats-only than it does like a gamer with easy access to ratings in vanilla mode.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

No. If you have advance knowledge or expectations it simply doesn't work and you don't learn how to play stats only.

I feel like this is somewhat realistic though since when new GMs are hired in "real life", they have precursory knowledge of the players on the team and what is expected of them.

Regardless, I think starting an MLB quick start and simming 10 years would work for guys wanted to play stats only.

[Silent_Thunder]

That said I do tend to play ratings about as often or a little less stats only, but it's because I have a big love/hate with stats only. I love it in concept and the feeling of it, but the UI makes it so ****** aggravating. So many nested menus, bouncing between 8 layers of stuff because by default it shows useless "conventional wisdom" stats, and so on. The fact that the team roster screen still thinks ERA is the stat I should care about for my pitchers is baffling. Yes I know Schmidt has an 5 ERA, thats because he was releif pitching during the complete defensive collapse of August after both my main and backup firstbasemen ate a broken leg.

A modular UI is something that's been a long time coming, and really needs to be higher on the agenda list IMHO.

That said, statsonly is far less scary than Wolf makes it seem, because he's a tad mental. You really don't need to go crazy and start making out of game spreadsheets and calculating things yourselves and so on and so on, you just gotta make use of shortlists properly and learn to read the roster page statlines quickly.

That said, the final thing I'll say before making my peace, is the AI weights.

Ratings Play: 25/40/25/10
Stats Only: 0/60/30/10

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Silent_Thunder

That said I do tend to play ratings about as often or a little less stats only, but it's because I have a big love/hate with stats only. I love it in concept and the feeling of it, but the UI makes it so ****** aggravating. So many nested menus, bouncing between 8 layers of stuff because by default it shows useless "conventional wisdom" stats, and so on. The fact that the team roster screen still thinks ERA is the stat I should care about for my pitchers is baffling. Yes I know Schmidt has an 5 ERA, thats because he was releif pitching during the complete defensive collapse of August after both my main and backup firstbasemen ate a broken leg.

A modular UI is something that's been a long time coming, and really needs to be higher on the agenda list IMHO.

That said, statsonly is far less scary than Wolf makes it seem, because he's a tad mental. You really don't need to go crazy and start making out of game spreadsheets and calculating things yourselves and so on and so on, you just gotta make use of shortlists properly and learn to read the roster page statlines quickly.

That said, the final thing I'll say before making my peace, is the AI weights.

Ratings Play: 25/40/25/10
Stats Only: 0/60/30/10

Stats only: 0/67/22/11

And I'm thorough, not a "tad mental." When you're "a tad mental" you turn into J. Henry Waugh and the game takes over your life.

Besides, what do you think all those data export functions are for? Analytical spreadsheets.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Cod

I feel like this is somewhat realistic though since when new GMs are hired in "real life", they have precursory knowledge of the players on the team and what is expected of them.

Regardless, I think starting an MLB quick start and simming 10 years would work for guys wanted to play stats only.

It's your game, play it your way. I'm just the DH for stats-only.

[AlpineSK]

The missed rating:

Player Aging - 0.850
Player Dev - 1.000

My old online league used that. It seemed like a good mix.

Also I tend to keep my TCR at 50.