Historical Questions

[PoopyJoe69]

First, is it an intended goal that most historical players begin the game with very poor positional ratings, or is it just the result of the historical database being changed? I know in the past, almost every player would come in with their positional ratings maxed out, but now even veterans don't have their full positional ratings from the start. This makes it a so that bench players come in to the game essentially being unable to field until they play those positions enough.

Second, it seems like there are too many players who enter the game being on major league salaries, even when they haven't ever appeared in the major leagues or are not on the 40-man roster. This results in some players heading into arbitration after the first in-game year, even when they theoretically shouldn't be.

If these features are working as intended, then please let me know! It just seems a little wonky as currently constructed.

[LansdowneSt]

On the fielding, what are your settings on Step 1 and 3 of the Wizard for Historical games. Fielding can be for the import year alone, average over multiple years, or career. Also, do you mean experience at a position, or the skill set in that position? Examples by year/player - maybe w/screenshots would probably allow the community and developers to provide more insight.

[PoopyJoe69]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

On the fielding, what are your settings on Step 1 and 3 of the Wizard for Historical games. Fielding can be for the import year alone, average over multiple years, or career. Also, do you mean experience at a position, or the skill set in that position? Examples by year/player - maybe w/screenshots would probably allow the community and developers to provide more insight.

Right, that's my bad. I have fielding ratings set on the default 3-year period for Career Play in Step 1, and I use the OOTP engine for development in Step 3. I'm more referring to the experience at a position which is lower than in years past. I'll attach screenshots to this post with examples. The top two are from OOTP 24, while the bottom two are from OOTP 23, but the same exact settings are used for each.

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by PoopyJoe69

First, is it an intended goal that most historical players begin the game with very poor positional ratings, or is it just the result of the historical database being changed? I know in the past, almost every player would come in with their positional ratings maxed out, but now even veterans don't have their full positional ratings from the start. This makes it a so that bench players come in to the game essentially being unable to field until they play those positions enough.

Second, it seems like there are too many players who enter the game being on major league salaries, even when they haven't ever appeared in the major leagues or are not on the 40-man roster. This results in some players heading into arbitration after the first in-game year, even when they theoretically shouldn't be.

If these features are working as intended, then please let me know! It just seems a little wonky as currently constructed.

Can you run a report on first year players salaries over 10 year period?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

Can you run a report on first year players salaries over 10 year period?

Fred can you teach the world to sing?

[PoopyJoe69]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

Can you run a report on first year players salaries over 10 year period?

I'm down to, but what would this report entail?

[omg_pwnasaurus]

Originally Posted by PoopyJoe69

First, is it an intended goal that most historical players begin the game with very poor positional ratings, or is it just the result of the historical database being changed? I know in the past, almost every player would come in with their positional ratings maxed out, but now even veterans don't have their full positional ratings from the start. This makes it a so that bench players come in to the game essentially being unable to field until they play those positions enough.

I noticed the same and was confused by this as well. Not sure if to Landsdowne's point, something needs to now be changed from default to get similar imports as the historical db might have adjusted these.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by PoopyJoe69

I'm down to, but what would this report entail?

Unfortunately, this question is not helpful- nor was that the intention. Rather, this is just another variation of this individual selfishly injecting into an honest plea for assistance his complaint that OOTP lacks certain report functions or statistics (specifically, those that are offered by Baseball-Reference, which apparently was crafted by lightning on the mountaintop).

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by omg_pwnasaurus

I noticed the same and was confused by this as well. Not sure if to Landsdowne's point, something needs to now be changed from default to get similar imports as the historical db might have adjusted these.

Part of my interest in the Wizard 1 & 3 settings is that OOTP has always defaulted to certain settings in the creation of a Historic Game, generally Career Play (with 3-year fielding from memory) and recalc. For a brief period when the game first came out, the defaults were Single-Season (so fielding based on one-year only) on Step 1 and no recalc on Step 3. So, you needed to read the settings and not just bang past them.

So, to adjust your game if you made it during that window on unintended defaults, check your settings and see if players coming in have the import settings as single year or multi-years and check the recalc option. It may be fine and set where the OP expected it - but it may not and I was wondering if that would be the first place to look. As for asking for examples, I just thought it would be helpful for a developer to try and see more into the problem without asking the same thing (so saving the OP time).

Even comparing the 24 and 23 examples of the player, the import settings may account for the difference. The db probably has the same info for these players so it's likely 1) import settings or 2) how the game is treating those fielding stats (an actual coding change which they'd have to come on here and mention). That's my best guess looking at it.

Oh, and it's also possible the year the OP is in too, those players didn't get on the field much. That'd be more of an issue in the Single Season setting too but I have not looked at their baseball-reference fielding stats for each position in that year.

[omg_pwnasaurus]

Looks like default for '24 is 3 year for fielding and recalc on. I left as 3 year for fielding and used dev engine/no recalc and got the same results as OP.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by omg_pwnasaurus

Looks like default for '24 is 3 year for fielding and recalc on. I left as 3 year for fielding and used dev engine/no recalc and got the same results as OP.

Yup, it has recalc on now as default but didn't initially.

But point being you got the same fielding starting a game in that year.

I wonder if seeing the Player Editor, lower right would be helpful. To see the skills and experience time for positions directly in the editor for a historic game started that year in 24 and 23 under the exact same set-up assumptions.

EDIT: If the skills are the same and it is just experience, they may have indeed changed it so more playing time to get the experience up. May not be a bad thing as I find players gain experience pretty quick... but would be good to know.

[LansdowneSt]

Just checked baseball-reference and their playing time at the positions in question over a 3-year span ... I kinda agree with OOTP24. They only played a handful of games at the low-ranked positions.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...ermaes01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...lancan01.shtml

[omg_pwnasaurus]

I'm confused on why in '23 the fielding ratings seem maxed to start the save as opposed to in '24 when they start lower and leave that max as potential as in the view of German above.

I've seen the same results in other players when I start a '24 save where they leave that ceiling instead of auto maxing them to start like they did in '23.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by omg_pwnasaurus

I'm confused on why in '23 the fielding ratings seem maxed to start the save as opposed to in '24 when they start lower and leave that max as potential as in the view of German above.

I've seen the same results in other players when I start a '24 save where they leave that ceiling instead of auto maxing them to start like they did in '23.

I hear ya. When playing 23, I didn't think anything of it but seeing the difference, I too wonder.

As I said, I kind of like it. Look at German. He has no business importing as a CF at that rating in OOTP 23 in 2010 given his playing time stats. I imagine some work was done to improve fielding and maybe part of that was better reflecting the loss of proficiency (not necessarily skills b/c the potential seems appropriate) and rust that comes when the player didn't play there much anymore. But it looks like a coding change the more we look at it but they'll have to come on the thread and let us know.

[PoopyJoe69]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

I hear ya. When playing 23, I didn't think anything of it but seeing the difference, I too wonder.

As I said, I kind of like it. Look at German. He has no business importing as a CF at that rating in OOTP 23 in 2010 given his playing time stats. I imagine some work was done to improve fielding and maybe part of that was better reflecting the loss of proficiency (not necessarily skills b/c the potential seems appropriate) and rust that comes when the player didn't play there much anymore. But it looks like a coding change the more we look at it but they'll have to come on the thread and let us know.

I definitely think that, in terms of outlier positions, OOTP handles that better now. But I'd imagine that, for their primary positions, they would at least be fairly close to their peak. It seems like every historical starter is at or nearly at their peak positional ratings in OOTP 24, at least, just not the utility/minor league guys.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by PoopyJoe69

I definitely think that, in terms of outlier positions, OOTP handles that better now. But I'd imagine that, for their primary positions, they would at least be fairly close to their peak. It seems like every historical starter is at or nearly at their peak positional ratings in OOTP 24, at least, just not the utility/minor league guys.

Have you advanced the game through Spring Training yet? I'd be curious to hear from you where they are after they go through getting some ABs in Spring.

[PoopyJoe69]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Have you advanced the game through Spring Training yet? I'd be curious to hear from you where they are after they go through getting some ABs in Spring.

This is what German and Blanco look like after being normal Spring starters i.e. having their backups play every 3rd or 4th game, but still having the lions share of appearances. Blanco started at 3rd, German at 2nd.

[luckymann]

Don't be surprised to see it change again on OD.