The best statistical run by a pitcher in baseball history?

[rogmax11]

This looks like rampant steroid abuse to me

[lgkeeper]

I haven't touched a darn thing with Zito - nor have I touched the rest of the league nor the settings.

Zito's just been a man-child - that's all.

[rogmax11]

That's what I feared. Only guys like Eric Gagne have IP/hits allowed ratios like that in reality, and then only due to the specialized roles they fill. Return Gagne to the rotation, wait for fatigue or familiarity to dull his electricity, and PRESTO! back to mediocre starter, with far more mainstream stats. Barry Zito is a fine young talent but the results you're posting are simply unbelievable, and thats the point: the game engine allows too much extremity with resultant cartoonish stats. For me, that is a deal-breaker.

[sporr]

My guess is that you can blame that on the roster set used. I've never seen anybody comparable to those kind of stats. Mathewson in our league is the best I've ever seen, but those stats are with a 4-man rotation and probably the best ratings of any pitcher in the league.

[joncarlos]

Originally posted by sporr
My guess is that you can blame that on the roster set used. I've never seen anybody comparable to those kind of stats. Mathewson in our league is the best I've ever seen, but those stats are with a 4-man rotation and probably the best ratings of any pitcher in the league.

Pedro was an immortal in the roster set I am using. He might have gone on to Zito-esque heights if he hadn't suffered a career-ender halfway through his 2nd year. Here's his stats:

2003: 19-7, 1.93, 391 K in 265.2 IP, 8 CG, 5 SHO, 0.79 WHIP
2004: 12-3, 2.29 ERA, 209 K and 34 BB in 141.1 IP

[lgkeeper]

Originally posted by rogmax11
That's what I feared. Only guys like Eric Gagne have IP/hits allowed ratios like that in reality, and then only due to the specialized roles they fill. Return Gagne to the rotation, wait for fatigue or familiarity to dull his electricity, and PRESTO! back to mediocre starter, with far more mainstream stats. Barry Zito is a fine young talent but the results you're posting are simply unbelievable, and thats the point: the game engine allows too much extremity with resultant cartoonish stats. For me, that is a deal-breaker.

That's what you feared? What did you fear? I didn't touch anything!!! And the other starters in his era aren't close. There have been guys with 24-25 wins, 2.00 ERA etc., but not in the same year.

I use G-Force's rosters - so they're a commonly used set.

[messenjah]

Dude calm down, he's not saying you changed them, he "feared" that because that means that the game is truly not accurate all the time. He wants historical accuracy and the fact of the matter is, guys just don't pitch as good as Prior did over those 7 years, meaning that the game engine is out of wack, at least sometimes. He was not slamming your or anything, just the game engine.

[seth70liz76]

I don't understand what rogmax11 deal is. If he wants realism, then he should take last years box scores and enter them into a database and watch everything unfold as it actually did. The whole point to a game like this is it CREATES ITS OWN REALITY. As it has been pointed out here there and everywhere, the names are meaningless, points of reference, more to help one keep track of 2400 or so players because familiar names are easier to rember that Zack Whozits or Jake Wassisname.

Remeber, 20 years ago, if OOTP produced a player with Barry Bonds' career arc, it would have been derided as a sign of an unrealistic game engine, because no one can hit 73 in a season, no one can draw close to 200 walks, etc etc. Is it likely a player could pitch as well as Mark Prior does in the sim cited above, not likely--but who is to say it couldn't happen. With all the guys going off the juice the next year or so, get set for some pitching that, 5 years ago, would have been unthinkable.

[lgkeeper]

Originally posted by seth70liz76
Remeber, 20 years ago, if OOTP produced a player with Barry Bonds' career arc, it would have been derided as a sign of an unrealistic game engine, because no one can hit 73 in a season, no one can draw close to 200 walks, etc etc. Is it likely a player could pitch as well as Mark Prior does in the sim cited above, not likely--but who is to say it couldn't happen. With all the guys going off the juice the next year or so, get set for some pitching that, 5 years ago, would have been unthinkable.

Couldn't agree more.

[dsvitak]

Hey, its his universe, let him play it out the way he wants.

Does it really matter if he edits his players to allow him to win 140 games a year?

Does it really matter if he wins 7 WS in a row?

Does it really matter if his game is so screwed up that Prior goes 75-1 over two years?

Heh....do enough editing, and maybe even the CUBS can win.

[rogmax11]

My deal has to do with a baseball sim that produces statistical results that simply are not credible. You dont have to agree with me, and Im not directing any disrespect to anyone; neither am I advocating a slavish stat-by-stat replication of past performances. What I AM seeking is a text-based program that can create a fictional universe which mimics realistic human performance rather than stretching my credulity to the breaking point. You ( this is a generic "you", nothing personal ) may take great delight in seeing pitchers produce stat lines like 300 IP with 427 SO and 132 HA season after season, but I cant ignore that in the hundred or so year history of contemporary baseball there are ZERO such careers, and thus the whole aura of believability in such a universe is destroyed.
In real life, Im dismayed by corking bats, HGH "augmentation", the DH, and so forth; to me, one of the most cherished qualities about baseball is its heritage from decade to decade. One can assess Walter Johnson and Nolan Ryan on a more-or-less even basis, and appreciate their respective exploits as peaks of achievement above a common baseline--but these are the extremes in their field, and even shooting stars like Koufax or Martinez are eventually grounded by injury or erosion before posting career arcs like the ones referenced in this thread.
Look, all I am saying is that I require a closer adherence to historical norms for MY happiness with OOTP; your mileage may vary. I am glad OOTP exists, and that Markus loves the sport enough to keep trying to improve his product. I merely wished to find out if the kinds of seasons being reported were generated from off-the-shelf settings, or were tweaked for personal reasons, in order to determine if the game, as presently constructed, would suit my wants.
Thanks to Messanjah: you got it right.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally posted by rogmax11
My deal has to do with a baseball sim that produces statistical results that simply are not credible. You dont have to agree with me, and Im not directing any disrespect to anyone; neither am I advocating a slavish stat-by-stat replication of past performances. What I AM seeking is a text-based program that can create a fictional universe which mimics realistic human performance rather than stretching my credulity to the breaking point. You ( this is a generic "you", nothing personal ) may take great delight in seeing pitchers produce stat lines like 300 IP with 427 SO and 132 HA season after season, but I cant ignore that in the hundred or so year history of contemporary baseball there are ZERO such careers, and thus the whole aura of believability in such a universe is destroyed.
In real life, Im dismayed by corking bats, HGH "augmentation", the DH, and so forth; to me, one of the most cherished qualities about baseball is its heritage from decade to decade. One can assess Walter Johnson and Nolan Ryan on a more-or-less even basis, and appreciate their respective exploits as peaks of achievement above a common baseline--but these are the extremes in their field, and even shooting stars like Koufax or Martinez are eventually grounded by injury or erosion before posting career arcs like the ones referenced in this thread.
Look, all I am saying is that I require a closer adherence to historical norms for MY happiness with OOTP; your mileage may vary. I am glad OOTP exists, and that Markus loves the sport enough to keep trying to improve his product. I merely wished to find out if the kinds of seasons being reported were generated from off-the-shelf settings, or were tweaked for personal reasons, in order to determine if the game, as presently constructed, would suit my wants.
Thanks to Messanjah: you got it right.

First off, we don't know what kind of other stuff he's done in setting up his league. We don't know if he adjusts league totals, or traded for all the best defensive players in the league (or edited defensive ratings). I agree with dsvitak. Tweak standard roster sets enough, expoit the trading and drafting AI enough, and maybe you can have your very own 75-1 pitcher.

Second, how many other people have seen things like this? From the responses here, not too many. My fictional league started off with some crazy stuff because I imported players from an old Earl Weaver league, but after four years of OOTP everything is pretty much right in line with historical precedent.

If you really think you can address Nolan Ryan and Walter Johnson on a more-or-less even basis, your definition of more-or-less is a lot less stringent than mine. Before you can even begin comparing the two you need to adjust their numbers for differences in park, league, quality of opposition, number of major league teams per unit population, segregation, training, salary, nutrition, travel, strategic dogma, the impact of varying rotation sizes, the DH, and probably a hundred other things.

Like seth70liz76 said, what was once unprecedented is now commonplace.

[rogmax11]

CBL-Commish,

With all due respect, all I was asking was if there were settings or other circumstances that had a hand in generating what I perceive as fantastical results.

Secondly, I disagree that the issue of unlikely stats is rare; these boards are strewn with threads containing references to anomalous stats, era-sensitive stats, the predominance of 1990's influenced stats, stolen base totals, triples, errors and fielding--surely you would agree, even if you disagree with the merits of my comments. I purchased v.2,v.3, and v.4 and attempted dozens of solo histories, and my personal experience has been that there are odd quirks in player generation and stat production that at some level have always ruined the experience, and that is why I am sensitive to this topic. As I indicated, your reaction and experiences may vary; Im merely seeking information and/or remedy.

Thirdly, well yeah, it appears our stringency sliders are set to different sensitivities. My point ( which may well have been opaque in presentation, damn my hunt-n-peck typing for delaying the transfer of thoughts into words ) wasnt that WJ and NR were equals, it was that their respective achievements--taking into account many of the factors you posited--can be appreciated as similarly transcendant even though the conditions were somewhat different between eras. Part of the fun with OOTP-type games is in the what-ifs, but that fun is diluted if the basis for comparison is too skewed.

Fourthly, your point is certainly correct but I dont have to like some of the consequences: 60+ homeruns may no longer be a rarity, and 75-80 may be lurking in the future, but I feel some sadness that long-cherished standards of excellence are rendered ho-hum by steroids, or over-expansion, or ballparks engineered to produce arcade baseball.

If you'll excuse me now, I will shuffle off to join the folks who decried the introduction of a juiced ball in 1920. We survived that, so we can survive this. Cheers.

[Vajracchedika]

Rogmax11, I completely understand your sentiments and your intentions on this topic. You and I are definitely on the same page when it comes to realism and a desire to see plausible results. Your posting about credible statistical results was probably the most eloquent and concise summary of such concerns that I've ever read. Programmers should print that posting and keep it near their workstations at all times.

Unfortunately, most people in the text-based simulation community view anything like what you posted as an affront to their sensibilities. They don't understand that the people who desire realism and are willing to analyze a product critically are the ones that drive the market and help make these games as good as they are, despite their imperfections. It's not a matter of unfounded criticism or a cynical attitude. It's a matter of continually pushing for and encouraging software development that will lead us to the best possible results.

But those who strive for better products are confronted with the same unthinking responses all the time. "If you want total realism, then just watch games on TV or simply pour through the box scores for a given season." That is nonsense. No one is asking for an exact duplication of statistical performance.

Think of it this way. If players hit 100 home runs in a season or batted for a .560 average in your simulations, even those of you who are more forgiving when it comes to realism would not stand for it. But what happened with this Mark Prior example is just as ridiculous. Based on those numbers, his winning percentage would be .843. That is 126 points higher than the highest winning percentage in modern baseball history, which belongs to Spud Chandler at .717. He finished his career in 1947. Prior's winning percentage during that stretch would also be 47 points higher than the highest winning percentage of all time, which was set by Al Spalding in the 1870's, when only underhanded pitching was allowed and some pitchers were starting nearly 70 games per season.

The point is not to duplicate seasons exactly as they occurred. It's to simulate fictional seasons with some semblance of realism. If we saw players getting 100 home runs every season, we'd hardly accept OOTP as a viable simulation. But seeing Mark Prior go 38-1 is no different than that. The highest win total since 1900 is 40, set by Ed Walsh in 1909. But he pitched in 66 games and started 48 of them to achieve that number! Yet Prior nearly matched his win total by simply going out and starting every fourth game. Ed Walsh pitched 464 innings to achieve 40 wins. Prior pitched only 341 innings to get 38 wins.

That is not within the realm of what is rational and reasonable to expect in a simulation. Keep the word 'simulation' in mind. A 'simulation' is defined as an imitation or as "a representation of the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another." It is "a theoretical account based on a similarity between the model and the phenomena that are to be explained." The closer that the imitation, representation, or theoretical account is to reality, the better the simulation. That's all we're looking to do. We want to keep closing that gap, until any major glitches and anomalies are either non-existent or extremely rare.

[sporr]

I would like to know what Prior's ratings were during this time compared with other players in the league. We have several pitchers that are rated quite good, but we haven't had anything close to that in our league. I wouldn't say that those results are indicative of most OOTP leagues.

[Vajracchedika]

I wouldn't say they're indicative either. But they definitely shouldn't happen. You have to think that something wasn't right with the ratings, or with the league setup, or some other area. It's particularly unbelievable if he was using modern settings. There is no way that pitchers should be getting well over 30 complete games in contemporary baseball. The leaders don't even get 10 anymore.

Personally, I've found most of OOTP's results to be just fine, but I've only used historical play where I've used the Lahman database and have imported rookes instead of creating them. The results tend to be very realistic in my leagues, especially when I'm using the historical ballparks and their appropriate factors.

But in the Prior case, we're talking about an existing player who somehow progressed in the ratings by giant leaps, until he became a juggernaut. That seems to transcend the issue of whether or not it's a historical league. But maybe if new players were created along the way and the balance of overall player ratings shifted somehow, Prior became the beneficiary.

[metsgeek]

Is it me...or is this a BIT too intense a discussion about a GAME????

[dougaiton]

Originally posted by Vajracchedika
Personally, I've found most of OOTP's results to be just fine, but I've only used historical play where I've used the Lahman database and have imported rookes instead of creating them. The results tend to be very realistic in my leagues, especially when I'm using the historical ballparks and their appropriate factors.

Just wondering whether we are getting a bit carried away here ...

Everyone has so far professed shock at Prior's numbers - great, they are surprising. But if we've all had relatively realistic results in our own leagues, then what on earth are we complaining about? Who knows what versions of roster sets etc. people are using? We can surely only talk from our own experience, and yours is an entirely positive one, apparently. So why are we second-guessing these guys' experiences and declaring it shouldn't have happened, when all we have are positive results?

Following a long post about how the game should be more of a simulation etc. you then post that you've had no realism problems in the past. Is then this complaint based upon the performance of a pitcher in someone else's league when we've nary had sight of an html file? To me, that doesn't seem adequate grounds to claim it is a 'major glitch'.

I entirely understand that your wish to push OOTP to new levels - this is an excellent maxim. However, I've yet to see any real problems with a situation like this (as opposed to the K problem, or reliever duration etc.). If anyone wants to put a league file up, then we can begin to discuss this!

[Ankhiel]

i've had 10/9/9 pitcher, with 4 man rotation, and never managed to get any ERA lower than 2.00... amazing stats i'd say

[rallymonkey1982]

The best run I've ever seen from a P in OOTP game from Adam Wainwright from 2010 to 2019. He won 9 straight Cy Youngs, from 2010 to 2019. Over those 10 years, his went 260-45 with an ERA of 2.22 and a WHIP of 0.92.