Recalc?

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by David Watts

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

I think what I did originally was to use the schedule creator, and insist on a 162 game schedule with only three game series'. So, that's a total of 54 3-game series'. With an 8-team league, that means each team will have seven opponents, which means each team will play a three game series with every other team 54/7 = 7.714 times. Not perfect right? Like at all. I really, really wanted the 162, and I really, really wanted all three game series, so I forced it on the schedule. Each team plays 5 teams 24 times, and 2 teams 21 times. Like I said, far from ideal, but show me a schedule that is ideal. In a 10-team league though, it works like a charm. Unfortunately, 10 team leagues were only fully in existence from 1962-1968, but in those leagues, every team would play every other team 18 times.

I think I did all this because I wanted the simplest damn schedule possible. I also have all teams take the same off-days. Again, weird, not something you would see in the real world, and probably not ideal. But, the system allowed me to create a schedule that would have 81 games prior to the All-Star break, and 81 games after, which while massively anal retentive is another thing that I wanted. I think that's because I've always been kind of pissed with the "first half" of the season being like 90 games or so, and the second half being 72 or so games. Something bothered me about the term "half", when it clearly wasn't a "half".

Here's some of my "work":

[actionjackson]

More. You'll notice that the final schedule is set up so that Houston stays in the National League. I'll have to monkey with the league structure from 1969 forward anyway, so I might as well shift them back to the NL every year, and not have to have the abomination that is Interleague:

EDIT: Opening Day is always a Monday, the All-Star Game is always a Tuesday, and the last day of the season is always a Sunday, just like it was when I was a kid.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by 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.

He's such an interesting dude. What a life.

As for haircuts, desperate times like COVID-19 shutdowns, call for desperate measures, like taking a trimmer to your hair because it's gotten ridiculous. Fortunately, said trimmer comes with multiple hair length attachments, so you can't **** it up too much.

[actionjackson]

Also, wish I could lose my need to manipulate the draft every year, but I just can't. I've seen way too much AI dumbness to go that route anymore.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

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.

Here's an alternative that I *think* would work for Fidrych if you wanted your "what if" to apply to The Bird, but otherwise didn't want your game varying much from history. IOW, you wanted one-year recalc, but wanted to see what Fidrych might've done...

1) After his first two seasons (76 & 77, his only good ones; 78 was good but too brief & would likely be affected by your "adjust" or "make bad" settings), you would need to dummy up his ratings for each year where he has real stats (78, 79 & 80; you'd need to go up thru 83 if you are importing real minor-leagues). You could do this by a) copying his previous years' ratings and then maybe (or maybe not) tweaking those a little, or b) entering his previous year's (or slightly different) stats and converting those to ratings (there's a button for this)... You'd need to do this each year where he had real stats.

2) After his real-life retirement, he should be good to go, with the engine taking over.

Now, I say this from the perspective that, with historical transactions, OOTP will turn guys like Ted Williams and Joe Di Maggio into free agents for the years they miss due to WWII. And then I override this and re-assign them to their teams so they don't miss seasons, and for me they play like the HOFers that they are. However, I believe David Watts has experienced something different (they become scrub-like).

The other caveat: So I try something similar with Sandy Koufax. However, since he actually retired at the top of his game, I don't have to dummy up any stats or ratings. Rather, after I unretire him and put him back on the Dodgers, he's still great. But that greatness frequently lasts what we might consider to be too long - well into his 40's sometimes. This didn't used to happen (several versions ago). With more recent versions of OOTP, I'm not so sure that the engine takes over; rather, it might be that Koufax's superior ratings just stay that way in perpetuity, or something like that...

At any rate, one of the "what if's" that I like to try once in awhile is to healthy-up the 1975 Dodgers to see if they can compete with the Big Red Machine. LA was a 102-win team the year before and made few changes the following year. But Bill Russell, Bill Buckner, Joe Ferguson, and to a lesser extent, Jimmy Wynn, were significantly slowed by injuries. And Tommy John missed the entire season. So for Russell, Buckner, and John, I average out their stats for 74 & 76 to come up with "what if healthy" 75 stats and use those to base ratings on. Ferg and Wynn are both a bit different cases so I pretty much just use their 74 numbers...

What would be cool is if we could select, say 1-year recalc for the game in general, but at any time go to a player's Editor page and click - for him only - something like "apply 5-year recalc." And his ratings would be overridden by a 5-year recalc. And the reverse scenario: the game is in 5-year recalc mode, but at any time you could apply a 1-year recalc to a player. This would open up a bunch of cool "what if" possibilities.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by thehef

Here's an alternative that I *think* would work for Fidrych if you wanted your "what if" to apply to The Bird, but otherwise didn't want your game varying much from history. IOW, you wanted one-year recalc, but wanted to see what Fidrych might've done...

1) After his first two seasons (76 & 77, his only good ones; 78 was good but too brief & would likely be affected by your "adjust" or "make bad" settings), you would need to dummy up his ratings for each year where he has real stats (78, 79 & 80; you'd need to go up thru 83 if you are importing real minor-leagues). You could do this by a) copying his previous years' ratings and then maybe (or maybe not) tweaking those a little, or b) entering his previous year's (or slightly different) stats and converting those to ratings (there's a button for this)... You'd need to do this each year where he had real stats.

2) After his real-life retirement, he should be good to go, with the engine taking over.

Now, I say this from the perspective that, with historical transactions, OOTP will turn guys like Ted Williams and Joe Di Maggio into free agents for the years they miss due to WWII. And then I override this and re-assign them to their teams so they don't miss seasons, and for me they play like the HOFers that they are. However, I believe David Watts has experienced something different (they become scrub-like).

The other caveat: So I try something similar with Sandy Koufax. However, since he actually retired at the top of his game, I don't have to dummy up any stats or ratings. Rather, after I unretire him and put him back on the Dodgers, he's still great. But that greatness frequently lasts what we might consider to be too long - well into his 40's sometimes. This didn't used to happen (several versions ago). With more recent versions of OOTP, I'm not so sure that the engine takes over; rather, it might be that Koufax's superior ratings just stay that way in perpetuity, or something like that...

At any rate, one of the "what if's" that I like to try once in awhile is to healthy-up the 1975 Dodgers to see if they can compete with the Big Red Machine. LA was a 102-win team the year before and made few changes the following year. But Bill Russell, Bill Buckner, Joe Ferguson, and to a lesser extent, Jimmy Wynn, were significantly slowed by injuries. And Tommy John missed the entire season. So for Russell, Buckner, and John, I average out their stats for 74 & 76 to come up with "what if healthy" 75 stats and use those to base ratings on. Ferg and Wynn are both a bit different cases so I pretty much just use their 74 numbers...

What would be cool is if we could select, say 1-year recalc for the game in general, but at any time go to a player's Editor page and click - for him only - something like "apply 5-year recalc." And his ratings would be overridden by a 5-year recalc. And the reverse scenario: the game is in 5-year recalc mode, but at any time you could apply a 1-year recalc to a player. This would open up a bunch of cool "what if" possibilities.

This'll be great for fredbeene's questions, so thank you. I think (but I can't confirm because I haven't gone through their war seasons) that Teddy Ballgame and Joe D would be covered off by the player development part. I use 5-year double weighted with the development system on at default. Not sure what effect this'll have on all the war year (and others who missed many seasons in a row) guys, but I think it might help get them through those blank seasons with much less damage than recalc alone would. I'm also playing Random Debut, with which I can't use historical transactions for obvious reasons, so I don't think I'll be affected by the free agent part, but I can't know for certain until I see them in action.

With Koufax, I think what you're describing would happen with recalc only. At least that's what happened with prior versions. I haven't played a long, long running game since OOTP16 though, so I may not have seen what you're talking about in the more recent versions.

Awesome 1975 Dodgers' concept, and the different recalcs for the game in general and individual players is absolutely mindblowing. This suggestion belongs in the suggestions for future versions thread. Seriously. I ain't no programmer, so I have no clue about how difficult it would be to do that (I would think very difficult), but if Markus could do it, as you say, it would open up a whole bunch of cool "what if" possibilities. Amazing that the Dodgers were able to finish second (albeit a looong way behind the Big Red Machine, but still 88-74 is nothing to sneeze at) in 1975 with all those guys out.

"The Toy Cannon" was such an underrated player. You have to squint hard to see it, but between 1965-1976, he was a very good player, with the exception of 1971. Superb at getting on base with excellent power in the heart of a huge era for pitchers? Move him from CF to RF, and I'm all over that. Had he played in a more sabermetrically inclined era, he would've been properly appreciated, but alas.

[italyprof]

Jim Wynn played in two of the worst home run parks in history: the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium and he still hit a lot of homers. I agree, a massively under-rated player.

Put him in Fenway and he is in the Hall of Fame, or in Wrigley or Tiger stadium.

Bill James says that a problem the Red Sox had for years was that they thought their offense was better than it really was because of the park effect. This led them to keep players whose numbers looked good but were in large part because of Fenway.

Well, the opposite might have happened to the Astros: they got rid of Morgan, Wynn, Bob Watson later etc and they might have won a bunch of pennants with those guys. Plus the Morgan trade got them players like Lee May, big Fenway Park types. Morgan's speed plus power were much more likely to work in the old Astrodome.

Wynn probably lost as many homers there as Elston Howard or Joe Dimaggio did in the death valley that was right center field in the old Yankee Stadium.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by italyprof

Jim Wynn played in two of the worst home run parks in history: the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium and he still hit a lot of homers. I agree, a massively under-rated player.

Put him in Fenway and he is in the Hall of Fame, or in Wrigley or Tiger stadium.

Bill James says that a problem the Red Sox had for years was that they thought their offense was better than it really was because of the park effect. This led them to keep players whose numbers looked good but were in large part because of Fenway.

Well, the opposite might have happened to the Astros: they got rid of Morgan, Wynn, Bob Watson later etc and they might have won a bunch of pennants with those guys. Plus the Morgan trade got them players like Lee May, big Fenway Park types. Morgan's speed plus power were much more likely to work in the old Astrodome.

Wynn probably lost as many homers there as Elston Howard or Joe Dimaggio did in the death valley that was right center field in the old Yankee Stadium.

Goddamn man. Morgan, Wynn, and Watson? Ugh. Ballpark adjustments are a bee-uuu-tee-ful thing aren't they?

Death Valley was left centre in Yankee Stadium. Right centre was lefty hitters paradise, and down the right field line was joke stadium territory.

You know who else got burned by Dodger Stadium? Willie "3-dog" Davis. He was only a tick above average as a hitter, but he didn't have to be great at the plate because of his defense. Imagine if you could go back in time as a GM with knowledge of park factors. You'd clean up! Oh wait...You can.

[scurvycure]

Originally Posted by 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.

This observation is interesting. Coincidentally, I heard a podcast last night in which a psychology professor remarked that there is a disconnect in the brain between the circuit that is responsible for wants/cravings and the circuit that is involved with liking. When I heard that I immediately thought about how I spend ten times as much time thinking about OOTP (and other simulation game) setups I would like to try than I do in actually playing them. I may get more enjoyment from the anticipation of playing than I do from the actual playing. Not sure this is exactly what you are remarking about, but somehow it feels like it's related.


Mike

[Trav876]

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.


.

Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but wouldn't 1-year re-calc be "more predictable" rather than as much of a roller coaster/randomnes as you mention? Since you know how the player did that particular year, he will likely do near the same in your current year as well, no?


Whereas if it's 3 or 5 years (especially without double weighted), they may or may not have higher ratings based on more variables (years) than just 1.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Trav876

Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but wouldn't 1-year re-calc be "more predictable" rather than as much of a roller coaster/randomnes as you mention? Since you know how the player did that particular year, he will likely do near the same in your current year as well, no?


Whereas if it's 3 or 5 years (especially without double weighted), they may or may not have higher ratings based on more variables (years) than just 1.

Oh yes, you're right in regards to it being more predictable. What I'm referring to in regards to a roller coaster ride is real life. One year recalc is going to make the real life ups and downs a player experiences more of a factor than 3 or 5 year recalc. With one year recalc, Bryce Harper is going to recalc to a .330 hitter in 2015, but in 2016 he will be a .243 hitter. That's harsh. With 3 year he will have a .343. a 243 and a .319 season in play, roughly a .296 recalc average for 2016. Even with double weight, the higher average years surrounding the awful .243 year are going to provide a cushion. The cool thing is, the game offers the 3 different options, so we can change things up, thus things never get boring.

[italyprof]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Goddamn man. Morgan, Wynn, and Watson? Ugh. Ballpark adjustments are a bee-uuu-tee-ful thing aren't they?

Death Valley was left centre in Yankee Stadium. Right centre was lefty hitters paradise, and down the right field line was joke stadium territory.

You know who else got burned by Dodger Stadium? Willie "3-dog" Davis. He was only a tick above average as a hitter, but he didn't have to be great at the plate because of his defense. Imagine if you could go back in time as a GM with knowledge of park factors. You'd clean up! Oh wait...You can.

You are absolutely right. I was thinking "right hand batters" and meant to write "left-center". Thanks for the correction. Would hate for someone younger here, unfamiliar with this lore to play their team in Yankee Stadium - the real, old YS - and wonder why his right hand power hitters are not getting it done !

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've been wondering about the Talent Change Randomness setting for a while now. I always forget to ask when I come to the forums... So, yeah...What does that mean TCR? Mine is set to 100 (default). What does 1 mean and what would 200 mean?

Originally Posted by David Watts

It's funny, I was watching this David Crosby documentary a couple months back

Would you happen to remember the name of the documentary? Was it on Netflix or Amazon Prime Video...some type of streaming service?

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Also, wish I could lose my need to manipulate the draft every year, but I just can't. I've seen way too much AI dumbness to go that route anymore.

Could you explain to me what you mean by "AI dumbness"?

Also, what do you mean when you say "manipulate the draft"? How are you able to manipulate it?

Originally Posted by scurvycure

This observation is interesting. Coincidentally, I heard a podcast last night in which a psychology professor remarked that there is a disconnect in the brain between the circuit that is responsible for wants/cravings and the circuit that is involved with liking. When I heard that I immediately thought about how I spend ten times as much time thinking about OOTP (and other simulation game) setups I would like to try than I do in actually playing them. I may get more enjoyment from the anticipation of playing than I do from the actual playing. Not sure this is exactly what you are remarking about, but somehow it feels like it's related.

That's funny. ootp is always on my mind too. I take it a step further. When I sit down in front of my screen ready to get my OOTP groove on...I do one or two things and then say, "Ohh....I never responded to that email." That ends up being an hour away from OOTP. "Oh, let me see if anyone responded to my question on the ootp forums" 2+ hours go by between these forums and falling into the black hole of the internet AKA the Web! By time I get back into ootp I can't remember the two or three things I wanted to do today before the Draft starts in 10 ootp days. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. I was so psyched to play ootp, but now my fav. Thursday show is starting up...Its 4 hours more until I proceed into the Amateur Draft. I have the attention span of a dying fruit fly...

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by ALB123

I've been wondering about the Talent Change Randomness setting for a while now. I always forget to ask when I come to the forums... So, yeah...What does that mean TCR? Mine is set to 100 (default). What does 1 mean and what would 200 mean?



Would you happen to remember the name of the documentary? Was it on Netflix or Amazon Prime Video...some type of streaming service?


Could you explain to me what you mean by "AI dumbness"?

Also, what do you mean when you say "manipulate the draft"? How are you able to manipulate it?



That's funny. ootp is always on my mind too. I take it a step further. When I sit down in front of my screen ready to get my OOTP groove on...I do one or two things and then say, "Ohh....I never responded to that email." That ends up being an hour away from OOTP. "Oh, let me see if anyone responded to my question on the ootp forums" 2+ hours go by between these forums and falling into the black hole of the internet AKA the Web! By time I get back into ootp I can't remember the two or three things I wanted to do today before the Draft starts in 10 ootp days. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. I was so psyched to play ootp, but now my fav. Thursday show is starting up...Its 4 hours more until I proceed into the Amateur Draft. I have the attention span of a dying fruit fly...

The name of the Documentary is Remember My Name. I think I watched it on Starz. Directv had a free preview weekend.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by ALB123

I've been wondering about the Talent Change Randomness setting for a while now. I always forget to ask when I come to the forums... So, yeah...What does that mean TCR? Mine is set to 100 (default). What does 1 mean and what would 200 mean?

It has to do with player development. First, from the manual (which doesn't appear to include an explanation for TCR):

Select the Disable Player Development check box if you do not want players to develop in your game world. This option is generally used by historical simulation fans who want the game to generate very specific statistical results, which could be thrown into disarray if player skill levels change during a season.

So think of player development off as meaning the OOTP engine will not affect player's development. This would be the equivalent of a "0" setting for Talent Change Randomness. Therefore, a setting of "1" would see OOTP affecting player development at a minuscule, nearly imperceptible, level. A setting of "200" would mean pretty wild changes (from historical performance), and setting of "100" would land right in the middle.

If you play with recalc on, then any OOTP development during the season would be undone when recalc happens in the offseason.

So, for a wild an unpredictable ride through history, you could have TCR at 200 and recalc off. In that scenario, players would import with ratings according to history (as per their import year), but then all bets are off, as you might have cup-of-coffee guys developing into HOFers, HOFers fizzling out, and everything in-between... Conversely, with TCR very low (or with Player Development off), and recalc on, you should see player performance very close to real life, in terms of both single seasons and career. And then with TCR set to 100 and recalc on, you would get some semblance of real-life history, but with plenty of single-year surprises (but not many career surprises, since players would be recalc'd each offseason).

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by thehef

It has to do with player development. First, from the manual (which doesn't appear to include an explanation for TCR):

Select the Disable Player Development check box if you do not want players to develop in your game world. This option is generally used by historical simulation fans who want the game to generate very specific statistical results, which could be thrown into disarray if player skill levels change during a season.

So think of player development off as meaning the OOTP engine will not affect player's development. This would be the equivalent of a "0" setting for Talent Change Randomness. Therefore, a setting of "1" would see OOTP affecting player development at a minuscule, nearly imperceptible, level. A setting of "200" would mean pretty wild changes (from historical performance), and setting of "100" would land right in the middle.

If you play with recalc on, then any OOTP development during the season would be undone when recalc happens in the offseason.

So, for a wild an unpredictable ride through history, you could have TCR at 200 and recalc off. In that scenario, players would import with ratings according to history (as per their import year), but then all bets are off, as you might have cup-of-coffee guys developing into HOFers, HOFers fizzling out, and everything in-between... Conversely, with TCR very low (or with Player Development off), and recalc on, you should see player performance very close to real life, in terms of both single seasons and career. And then with TCR set to 100 and recalc on, you would get some semblance of real-life history, but with plenty of single-year surprises (but not many career surprises, since players would be recalc'd each offseason).

Thanks for explaining that one to me, @thehef. I appreciate it. I pretty much thought it was what you just explained to me, but I wasn't totally confident. I always wonder to myself, "Why do the settings go 1-200 rather than 1-100." LoL

[quillenl]

Originally Posted by thehef

[Select the Disable Player Development check box if you do not want players to develop in your game world. This option is generally used by historical simulation fans who want the game to generate very specific statistical results, which could be thrown into disarray if player skill levels change during a season.

One note... don't do the above for anything other than a single season replay. If players aren't set to retire as they normally would... you are going to see really goofy results when players go past the real world equaivalent of the end of their career.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by quillenl

One note... don't do the above for anything other than a single season replay. If players aren't set to retire as they normally would... you are going to see really goofy results when players go past the real world equaivalent of the end of their career.

This is really great advice.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by ALB123

I always wonder to myself, "Why do the settings go 1-200 rather than 1-100." LoL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

[thehef]

Originally Posted by quillenl

One note... don't do the above for anything other than a single season replay. If players aren't set to retire as they normally would... you are going to see really goofy results when players go past the real world equaivalent of the end of their career.

If you're playing with historical txns on, then players will retire according to history regardless of whether you check or uncheck Retire According to History (a flaw, if you ask me, that appeared around version 13 or so). So in that scenario I think you'd be fine.