Recalc?

[David Watts]

Which recalc do you prefer, 1 year, 3 year or 5 year? Do you use a combo of recalc and the development engine? Or, do you prefer to turn recalc off altogether and go strictly with the OOTP development engine?

I've always preferred 1 year recalc over 3 and 5. I like the rollercoaster ride. I want Roger Maris to have the chance to hit 61 home runs, not 44.34 or 34.40 I know it's all in my head, but too often when I use 3 or 5 year it seems like players have the same season back to back and sometimes even back to back to back etc. Now 1 year does have it's faults. A player can win a Cy Young award in your league one year and end up pitching at the bottom of his teams bullpen the next, due to real life injuries or set backs.

I often wonder if injuries are even needed when using recalc especially 1 year recalc. The make bad settings often cripple guys enough as is. But, I do enjoy the storyline injuries provide a league

I do leave the OOTP development engine on as well. I think the combo of recalc and the development engine is the way to go when you aren't having players miss seasons and retire according to history.


.

[Reed]

I use 3 year recalc double weight current season. I used 1 year recall in the past and I was getting to many "outlier" seasons. To many having 400BA seasons or 50+HR seasons. Using 1 year recalc and due to randomness, about 25% of those that hit between 380 and 399 IRL will hit over 400 in OOTP while about about 30% of those that hit 400+ hit below 400 when I used 1 year recalc. Since their are a whole lot more hitters that hit between 380 and 399 IRL compare to 400+ hitters IRL, the number that hit above 400 was higher in my 1 year recalc league, Using 3 year recalc tones down the ratings some so the result for me is closer to deal life numbers of 400 seasons. Hope that makes some sense.
Also due to randomness, my players routinely hit 10 to 30 points or more higher or lower than their real life numbers would indicate.
Theoretically using 1 year recalc Maris should have a 50/50 chance of hitting 61 HRs of more but you will have other players with a chance of hitting 61. Using 3 years double weight I find down the ratings some so maybe only 1 player hits 61+ HRs and it may or may not be Maris.

[David Watts]

I tend to enjoy outliers. It's funny how we all have things that bug us.

[Reed]

In my current league that started in 1901 and now is up to 1913, I have suspended reality a little. I play 2 leagues 8 teams in each, but a 130 game regular schedule so players that start out really not have a good chance for an outlier season before they regress completely back toward their real like stats. At seasons end the league winners get a bye while the 2nd and 3rd place teams play each other with the winner then playing the league winner to see who goes to the World Series. I figured one of the 2 league winners would win the the World Series about 60% of the time but so far a wild card team has won 8 of 12 World Series. I know that is a very small sample size but it will be interesting to see if that trend continues.
One final comment and I'll stop rambling. I generally let the AM controlled everything and 1 of the teams played terrible for the first 5 years but now their lineup looks like HOF. They have Evers, Bresnehan,Collins, Cobb and Ed Walsh but only 1 world series. They should be dominant for a few more years.
Good luck with your league.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Reed

In my current league that started in 1901 and now is up to 1913, I have suspended reality a little. I play 2 leagues 8 teams in each, but a 130 game regular schedule so players that start out really not have a good chance for an outlier season before they regress completely back toward their real like stats. At seasons end the league winners get a bye while the 2nd and 3rd place teams play each other with the winner then playing the league winner to see who goes to the World Series. I figured one of the 2 league winners would win the the World Series about 60% of the time but so far a wild card team has won 8 of 12 World Series. I know that is a very small sample size but it will be interesting to see if that trend continues.
One final comment and I'll stop rambling. I generally let the AM controlled everything and 1 of the teams played terrible for the first 5 years but now their lineup looks like HOF. They have Evers, Bresnehan,Collins, Cobb and Ed Walsh but only 1 world series. They should be dominant for a few more years.
Good luck with your league.

Do you play a series between the 2nd and 3rd place teams, or is it a single game?

[Reed]

The 2nd and 3rd place play a 5 game series with the second place having home field advantage. The winner then plays a 7 game series against the league winner and that winner plays a 7 game world series.

[italyprof]

if I am playing historical years, but with the rosters different from an inaugural draft, but all players from the same season, I play 3-year with the current doubled in weight. This allows for some variation but also more or less realistic outcomes historically, and I also reduce the variability in talent down to 25.

So probably David Watts you and I like different kinds of outcomes. I don't love outlyers that much. But I understand wanting at least someone sometimes to have a big year.

When I play random debut, I prefer 5-year with current year doubled in weight. If I play a historical year I want players to miss seasons they missed and to retire as they did historically. But with random debut, I want a different baseball world. So the five-year recalc works better and also enables them to play during the war years etc.

[yondaime4]

So I have a question and I am hoping since we are talking about recalc and historical sim that this will be a good place to ask it. I've been doing a lot of testing with Historical sims recently. Essentially what I am attempting to do is create a historical sim that creates a new history for a modern MLB. Same historical players but different teams etc. I'm sure we've all tried it.

So in testing with Recalc i found the results to be too similar to real life, but maybe with some more extremes. Mark McGwire with 800 homers etc, but players career paths almost perfectly matched their real life careers (minus years missed by wars and injuries - the engine appears to have taken over for those seasons, which is what I want).

So now I am running a league, started in 1920, with recalc turned off, random entry into the league with minor leagues - everything turned over to the development engine, but I'm getting almost no 'superstar' seasons. It's like the simulation 'flattened' the talent - (for example in 1948 there have only been three 40 homer seasons ever, all but three 10+ WAR seasons came before the start of the sim).

Any ideas? Do I need to go back to recalc and change the recalc years and talent randomness?

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by yondaime4

So I have a question and I am hoping since we are talking about recalc and historical sim that this will be a good place to ask it. I've been doing a lot of testing with Historical sims recently. Essentially what I am attempting to do is create a historical sim that creates a new history for a modern MLB. Same historical players but different teams etc. I'm sure we've all tried it.

So in testing with Recalc i found the results to be too similar to real life, but maybe with some more extremes. Mark McGwire with 800 homers etc, but players career paths almost perfectly matched their real life careers (minus years missed by wars and injuries - the engine appears to have taken over for those seasons, which is what I want).

So now I am running a league, started in 1920, with recalc turned off, random entry into the league with minor leagues - everything turned over to the development engine, but I'm getting almost no 'superstar' seasons. It's like the simulation 'flattened' the talent - (for example in 1948 there have only been three 40 homer seasons ever, all but three 10+ WAR seasons came before the start of the sim).

Any ideas? Do I need to go back to recalc and change the recalc years and talent randomness?

Do you have the setting checked that "adjusts league settings with history?" Also what comes to mind is checking the box that "imports player modifiers according to history"



If not, all the guys- and the league, will stay in 1920 type settings. So it wouldn't surprise me that they haven't evolved to hit more HRs

[yondaime4]

Originally Posted by Trav876

Do you have the setting checked that "adjusts league settings with history?" Also what comes to mind is checking the box that "imports player modifiers according to history"



If not, all the guys- and the league, will stay in 1920 type settings. So it wouldn't surprise me that they haven't evolved to hit more HRs

Yeah I have it set to adjust league totals. When i look at the totals, they are coming in consistent. So if the year is supposed to have 1000 homers as a league, but a little more broadly distributed. I am going to keep simming. It seems to be improving a bit - Duke Snider hit 45 in 1950 - but it's just weird that I'm not seeing any Historic seasons.

[quillenl]

I've always been a fan of recalc and typically did 3 year recalc. This time around in version 21 I have been playing around with setting Talent Randomness to 1 and just using the Talent Development Engine. I tried letting auto calc modifiers run and got ok results although I'd get more outlier stat leaders than I was comfortable with.

This last league, and I have been very happy with it, I set strategies for 1979 as well as the modifiers, I then went ahead and set everything to 1 that was sensible (If you start a 1979 league you will see the defaults and I try to keep them all right there). The only 3 modifiers I tweak from that point on are Hits, HRs, and Strikeouts. I don't generally need to tweak these much, if at all season to season.

If you want much more realistic results season to season just letting the game change the strategy automatically should do it (I like to make all the teams run 5 man rotations personally ).

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Which recalc do you prefer, 1 year, 3 year or 5 year? Do you use a combo of recalc and the development engine? Or, do you prefer to turn recalc off altogether and go strictly with the OOTP development engine?

I've always preferred 1 year recalc over 3 and 5. I like the rollercoaster ride. I want Roger Maris to have the chance to hit 61 home runs, not 44.34 or 34.40 I know it's all in my head, but too often when I use 3 or 5 year it seems like players have the same season back to back and sometimes even back to back to back etc. Now 1 year does have it's faults. A player can win a Cy Young award in your league one year and end up pitching at the bottom of his teams bullpen the next, due to real life injuries or set backs.

I often wonder if injuries are even needed when using recalc especially 1 year recalc. The make bad settings often cripple guys enough as is. But, I do enjoy the storyline injuries provide a league

I do leave the OOTP development engine on as well. I think the combo of recalc and the development engine is the way to go when you aren't having players miss seasons and retire according to history.


.

You know my answer here. 5-year, double weighted, development engine on at default. I used to use 3-year, but switched to 5-year, and my reasoning escapes me at this point, but I'm sure I had a good reason 'cause I usually do.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

You know my answer here. 5-year, double weighted, development engine on at default. I used to use 3-year, but switched to 5-year, and my reasoning escapes me at this point, but I'm sure I had a good reason 'cause I usually do.

I also switched my base fielding ratings and pitcher stamina on...from 3-years to entire career, and I now use Real Stats instead of Neutered Stats. I've always used Remaining Years of Career for my Potential Ratings.

I remember why I switched to 5-year recalc now. The switch from Neutered Stats to Real Stats meant I was going to have players with large gaps (Joe D, and Teddy Ballgame being the most prominent). Neutered Stats fill those gaps in, but Real Stats leave them as they were. I wanted the longest range possible to cover off for that.

[David Watts]

Ah Recalc. I love things in real life like Josh Hamilton hitting .268 in 2009, .359 in 2010 and .298 in 2011. I love Bryce Harper hitting .330 in 2015 and following it up with a .243 season in 2016. I want there to be a chance that Mark Fidrych has that incredible 1976 season and then fades into "what could have been." To me this is the stuff that makes baseball such a great game.

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Reed

The 2nd and 3rd place play a 5 game series with the second place having home field advantage. The winner then plays a 7 game series against the league winner and that winner plays a 7 game world series.

Personally i do everything 9 game playoffs.
3 games was always ridiculously short.

Longer the series the more likely the dominant overall team will surface.
I wish i could add double header option to playoffs!

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Ah Recalc. I love things in real life like Josh Hamilton hitting .268 in 2009, .359 in 2010 and .298 in 2011. I love Bryce Harper hitting .330 in 2015 and following it up with a .243 season in 2016. I want there to be a chance that Mark Fidrych has that incredible 1976 season and then fades into "what could have been." To me this is the stuff that makes baseball such a great game.

but aren't there other variables that impact like
Player Happiness that are accounting for the changes?

I want to try and sim what if's like what if FIDRYCH NEVER got hurt.
How that have changed everything.
Maybe NY would never have caught Boston etc

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

but aren't there other variables that impact like
Player Happiness that are accounting for the changes?

I want to try and sim what if's like what if FIDRYCH NEVER got hurt.
How that have changed everything.
Maybe NY would never have caught Boston etc

For the Fidrych one you might have to go no recalc, although there is a chance you could use recalc, but you'd have to use it in combination with the development engine in order to avoid a complete crash and burn when his career numbers run out after his age 25 season. By using five year recalc, you could put off the crash a bit, as it would stretch out his numbers more than 1 year or 3 year. Ultimately though, I'd strongly recommend combining it with the development engine, which could have any number of outcomes once his numbers run out. His final two seasons might hammer his ratings to a point that he can't come back from, so probably no recalc, and gambling on the development engine is your best bet.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

Personally i do everything 9 game playoffs.
3 games was always ridiculously short.

Longer the series the more likely the dominant overall team will surface.
I wish i could add double header option to playoffs!

Seven game series all the way for me. I use the real major league setup with no divisions at any time, and from 1901-1992, I have the top two teams from each league making the postseason, so I have an LCS, and a World Series. From 1993 forward, the top four teams from each league make it, 4 @ 1, and 3 @ 2 in the league semi-finals, and then worst record @ best record after that. Seven game series in all three rounds. I use the MLB tiebreaking system to determine home field advantage, if teams have the same record. Houston never moves to the AL in my world because I'll be damned if Interleague is ever going to set foot in my leagues.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Seven game series all the way for me. I use the real major league setup with no divisions at any time, and from 1901-1992, I have the top two teams from each league making the postseason, so I have an LCS, and a World Series. From 1993 forward, the top four teams from each league make it, 4 @ 1, and 3 @ 2 in the league semi-finals, and then worst record @ best record after that. Seven game series in all three rounds. I use the MLB tiebreaking system to determine home field advantage, if teams have the same record. Houston never moves to the AL in my world because I'll be damned if Interleague is ever going to set foot in my leagues.

How do you do 162 game schedules with only 8 teams and no divisions?

[David Watts]

It's funny, I was watching this David Crosby documentary a couple months back and David was talking about Heroin. He said the first time he used it was the best high he ever had in his whole life and every single time he used from then on, was him chasing that high and never once finding it. Of course, I at once thought about OOTP and how you can find that perfect league and know it's perfect, but you decide there's something better on the other side of the rainbow........And then you spend years chasing that elusive perfection that you never should have walked away from in the first place. Ugh! I almost cut my hair.