What is More Important in Historical Leagues: IRL Stats or Ratings?

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by jcard

If you have not already, I strongly suggest reading the linked thread from 2021; the early posts are less relevant, but soon the discussion focuses on exactly the types of questions you are asking:

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=331958

Will do, thanks

[Brad K]

Many years ago Jim Boutin observed that where objective measurements exist - how fast can he run, how high can he jump, etc - modern athletes are far better than old timers. At the time there were no objective measurements in baseball.

Now we have objective measurements, pitch velocity, spin rate, exit speed, exit angle, etc. How does moving an old time star 60 or 70 years into the future improve any of that? It doesn't.

Perform any mathematical magic you want but the fact remains the idea of lots of old time players making it in the modern MLB is a starry eyed dream.

[Rain King]

So, this is a "Random Debut" league then, correct?

Random Debut is neutralized across era in some way (I don't have details on that specifically). However, I can say that if a pitcher is the best strikeout pitcher of his low strikeout era they will be rated as a high strikeout pitcher in whichever era they get imported into.

Importantly, you will also see those ratings. So, you will see that Sam Crawford is a relative "7/8" power when imported in 1961 (just an example in a league I just created).

I would recommend creating your own Random Debut league and looking through the players that get generated initially and I think that will give you the best idea of how this works.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Rain King

So, this is a "Random Debut" league then, correct?

Random Debut is neutralized across era in some way (I don't have details on that specifically). However, I can say that if a pitcher is the best strikeout pitcher of his low strikeout era they will be rated as a high strikeout pitcher in whichever era they get imported into.

Importantly, you will also see those ratings. So, you will see that Sam Crawford is a relative "7/8" power when imported in 1961 (just an example in a league I just created).

I would recommend creating your own Random Debut league and looking through the players that get generated initially and I think that will give you the best idea of how this works.

If you are 100% sure of the bold-faced statement, that's good enough for me.

That would suggest that even the real stats are at least era-neutralized and, could one fairly assume, ballpark-neutralized?

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Now we have objective measurements, pitch velocity, spin rate, exit speed, exit angle, etc. How does moving an old time star 60 or 70 years into the future improve any of that? It doesn't.

I dunno. Time machines don't exist so arguments like this always come across to me as just a rationalization for recency bias.

Athletic performance should always be measured in the context of its era. Cross-era comparisons are ultimately meaningless.

I mean, if we somehow did have a time machine and brought a 20-year-old Bob Feller to the present, then yes he would not do as well for the reasons you mentioned. But if we instead brought a 7-year-old Bob Feller to the present and gave him access to all of the modern training techniques then would he become great? It's hard to know because it's pure speculation, but instinct leans towards "probably".

And if that happened, then suddenly all of the talk about the superiority of modern athletes would clearly just be about training regimens, not the athletes themselves, and it would be even more obvious why cross-era comparisons have no meaning.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

If you are 100% sure of the bold-faced statement, that's good enough for me.

That would suggest that even the real stats are at least era-neutralized and, could one fairly assume, ballpark-neutralized?

Here is a Random Debut league sorted by stuff in the Inaugural draft.

See how Ted Gray and Russ Ford are up near the top.

https://www.screencast.com/t/Uo3FRqj3XOsD

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Here is a Random Debut league sorted by stuff in the Inaugural draft.

See how Ted Gray and Russ Ford are up near the top.

https://www.screencast.com/t/Uo3FRqj3XOsD

Get Toad Ramsey in a random debut and you're probably getting a 4000 strikeout guy. Rube Waddell is also going to be a big k guy.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Get Toad Ramsey in a random debut and you're probably getting a 4000 strikeout guy. Rube Waddell is also going to be a big k guy.

I can't tell if this is snark or not, but I'm wondering if you've ever tried your hand at neutralizing baseball stats across eras? Particularly when we are talking about 19th century players.

I think if running a random debut in OOTP you are best not using the years before 1901.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I can't tell if this is snark or not, but I'm wondering if you've ever tried your hand at neutralizing baseball stats across eras? Particularly when we are talking about 19th century players.

I think if running a random debut in OOTP you are best not using the years before 1901.

Holy crap, it's not snark at all. It's the truth. I tried using pre 1901 guys and it's not for me. I have a great friend on here and he loves using the pre1900 guys. It's all a matter of what you want in your league. I don't pay attention to ratings, so I can't comment on that stuff, but I know from experience that Waddell is going to strikeout a ton of batters. Feller will too, but he may become a relief pitcher and never recover from the war years. Now that last part is snark, but it's good natured snark

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Athletic performance should always be measured in the context of its era. Cross-era comparisons are ultimately meaningless.

Yes. A lot of random debut players will be disappointed reading this.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Yes. A lot of random debut players will be disappointed reading this.

Random debut isn't about cross era comparisons. Everyone that played baseball were at the time or still are a human being. If Babe Ruth played in the 80's instead of when he did, he would play like a 80's style player. Why random debut is a blast and why Markus deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for great designs in gaming is, he completely understood that simple truth.. Instead of designing the the game so Ruth is a member of the Avengers playing baseball, Markus made it so he will perform as one of the best to ever play the game according to the period the random debut player is stuffing him into

[Brad K]

I remember one of the saber gurus writing that a super star from decades ago will do well in any era but lesser players from decades ago will not do well in modern baseball.

I can see why people are interested in random debut. I haven't gotten good enough at historical yet that I want to leave it.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I remember one of the saber gurus writing that a super star from decades ago will do well in any era but lesser players from decades ago will not do well in modern baseball.

I can see why people are interested in random debut. I haven't gotten good enough at historical yet that I want to leave it.

Wait, you're supposed to be good at this game. A ways back I quit managing/or general managing because of how bad I was at it. Plus, when managing I would do things like getting mad at a certain pitcher to the extent that I became hell bent on ruining his career. Ugh, therefore I just operate as a fan/commish now.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Wait, you're supposed to be good at this game.

How would I know?

I've learned some things the last 20 years (game time) in my current game that would have been very helpful the first 20 years.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

When playing out stuff, IRL stats don't mean anything. It doesn't matter if a player hit .400 in a season, if his in-game contact is a 35, he's not going to play well in your league.

Now, how that can happen will depend a lot more on how the league is set up. If you're using a recalc, the guy who hit .400 likely won't have a 35 contact rating. But if your league uses the development engine, it's possible that basically in your universe, the player just never developed.

I would guess if the players are that different, even accounting for era, then this is a league that does not use recalc. In that event, you can basically treat it like a fictional universe, and the name "Babe Ruth" is basically only used to set their initial ratings when he first shows up.

I have one quick and easy (I hope) follow-up question for you on this.

Suppose that Player A and Player B have identical ratings. Let's say they both have 45 power, 50 gap power, 45 contact, 50 eye, and 40 avoid Ks, and they are both rated at 2.5 stars overall. Completely identical. Yet according to the 3-year recalc, Player A's IRL stats on hits per at bat, XBH, walks, etc., lead to a 115 wRC+, while Player B's IRL stats leads to a 100 wRC+—IOW, rated the exact same by the game, but different outcomes in real life.

Does the game look beyond just the identical ratings to each guy's IRL stats and note that Player A with the 115 wRC+ is slightly better than Player B and his 100 wRC+, thus giving A a range of potential outcomes that makes it likely he outperforms B? Or does the game look strictly at the ratings, nothing else, and conclude that the two players are completely identical and thus have the exact same potential range of outcomes?

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

I have one quick and easy (I hope) follow-up question for you on this.

Suppose that Player A and Player B have identical ratings. Let's say they both have 45 power, 50 gap power, 45 contact, 50 eye, and 40 avoid Ks, and they are both rated at 2.5 stars overall. Completely identical. Yet according to the 3-year recalc, Player A's IRL stats on hits per at bat, XBH, walks, etc., lead to a 115 wRC+, while Player B's IRL stats leads to a 100 wRC+—IOW, rated the exact same by the game, but different outcomes in real life.

Does the game look beyond just the identical ratings to each guy's IRL stats and note that Player A with the 115 wRC+ is slightly better than Player B and his 100 wRC+, thus giving A a range of potential outcomes that makes it likely he outperforms B? Or does the game look strictly at the ratings, nothing else, and conclude that the two players are completely identical and thus have the exact same potential range of outcomes?

The stats are used to create the ratings.

The ratings are then used during the simulation...it isn't going back to stats from there.

However, remember that the underlying ratings are more granular than the 20-80 scale...so just because those ratings are displaying as the same doesn't mean there aren't slight differences between the players at the engine rating level.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The stats are used to create the ratings.

The ratings are then used during the simulation...it isn't going back to stats from there.

However, remember that the underlying ratings are more granular than the 20-80 scale...so just because those ratings are displaying as the same doesn't mean there aren't slight differences between the players at the engine rating level.

Are you saying then that Pitcher A and Pitcher B are identical in the game, or are you saying that Pitcher A does have better potential range of outcomes than Pitcher B because the ratings based on IRL stats actually run 1-250, and not 20-80? That's the question.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Are you saying then that Pitcher A and Pitcher B are identical in the game, or are you saying that Pitcher A does have better potential range of outcomes than Pitcher B because the ratings based on IRL stats actually run 1-250, and not 20-80? That's the question.

Player A might be a 47 and player B a 52, and they would both display as a 50, for example.

But yeah, as mentioned, basically actual stats are only used to generate the ratings. If you have development on, it does not look at the stats. If you have recalc on, and 2 players are rated the same, then other than the rounding issues above, the players should play the same.