The thread you should be reading, but aren't!

[HonusWagner]

Do you know what they're talking about? I guarantee you don't. No one does which is why so many historical leagues get it wrong year after year.


https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=352747

[Reed]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

Do you know what they're talking about? I guarantee you don't. No one does which is why so many historical leagues get it wrong year after year.


https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=352747

Please elaborate.
Are you saying it’s just to complicated to understand?
What don’t you understand?

Are you talking about the controversy?
At one time you would set adjust/weaken during league creation. After league creation you COULD NOT change adjust/weaken BUT you could change recalc to 1, 3, 5 year etc.. I think a lot of us (or at least me) assumed that if you change your recalc setting, then the game would internally changed the weaken/adjust (at least I did) since you couldn’t change it.

Last year or the year before they changed the adjust/weaken so you could change it AFTER league creation. It recently was discovered (or revealed) that the game DOES (or did not) internally modify the adjust/weaken setting based on your recalc setting. What you see is what the game uses. Some (or maybe a lot) of individuals are upset about this revelation and blaming others for not knowing or revealing this information in the past. Basically it is time to move on.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

Do you know what they're talking about? I guarantee you don't. No one does which is why so many historical leagues get it wrong year after year.


https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=352747

One thing they removed from 25 is the ability to set potential ratings based on the recalc base.

So, for example, if you are using a 3-year recalc, then calculating a player's potential rating is based upon his best performance in that 3-year period.

I really miss this, lol

[Scoman]

I'm just a little puzzled on why this information isn't available in the historical league setup.


And why we had to find out in a post on the forums?

Pretty important info most historical players have no idea about.

[Thundercrack]

Took a quick look. Made me a little dizzy

[HonusWagner]

Exactly my point. Seems critical information for historical leagues yet I've never seen a discussion, not even an annual "so what settings do use for ____?". Which suggests everyone is bored talking about it or there are a bunch of historical leagues owners are scratching their heads over.

My historical scenario is - what if the Fed hadn't folded? Is there a fine-tuning so I have enough players for rosters without having too many RL one-season 50AB wonders putting up Allstar career numbers?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Reed

Basically it is time to move on.

People had settings with prior versions of OOTP that produced results that they like. Someone who wants to continue with those settings doesn't know what their equivalent is for 25. That needs to be answered before there's a 'move on."

[Bill Veeck]

Originally Posted by Brad K

People had settings with prior versions of OOTP that produced results that they like. Someone who wants to continue with those settings doesn't know what their equivalent is for 25. That needs to be answered before there's a 'move on."

Agree

[LansdowneSt]

It looks like it changed in OOTP23 but no one knew it because everyone in the community was answering questions regarding it based on how it had been in OOTP22. To test, select a 1921 game and look at Babe Twombly.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...wombba01.shtml

Here are imports of 1921 in various game editions and the Adjust setting at 300 AB on a 3-year recalc. Weaken setting untouched. 1-100 scale, No scouting on.

Here is an OOTP23 thread on A/W:

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=343720

Matt seems to answer the question correctly (in that he cites the way it is from OOTP23 forward). In the thread though, members of the community, unaware of the change describe their experience differently ... based on the many editions prior to OOTP23. The multiple members of the community that answer the question the way the game had been doing it for so long, don't deserve fault. They too continued with their long-standing settings on A/W throughout the OOTP23 and 24 cycles before realizing it changed. I can see, from Matt's perspective, why it is not in the OOTP25 change notes ... because it's been there for a couple years now.

Looking at OOTP23 though I wonder if it may also be the first time that the game double weighted current year stats by default, adding to the available AB's to count. Consider that in a 1921 game, 3-year recalc, Babe T has 358 AB (183 in 1921 and 175 in 1922) and if the current year of 1921 is double weighted in a 3-year recalc, he has 541 AB to consider.

He looks adjusted with a 300 setting in A/W plus 3-year recalc in prior editions. But in OOTP23, 400 AB Adjust won't knock him down. In fact, testing still... a 500 Adjust setting won't knock him down. A 600 Adjust knocks him some but not nearly like OOTP22, so the meaning of Adjust and the meaning of Weaken have probably changed over time too.

So, in looking at this, it seems the outrage is about three game cycles too late.

As for release notes, this was the only thing I saw in the OOTP23 release notes: * Improved historical balancing of ratings on import/recalc. Historical ratings should better adjust to era, and be more consistent between new games and recalc.

Sometimes brevity is good. Sometimes not.

Anyway, if anyone else wants to actually look at past editions and draw a conclusion, please do. There's been way too many posts on all of this without quantitative testing and it was driving me nuts.

[oomm]

.

[oomm]

Originally Posted by Reed

Please elaborate.
Are you saying it’s just to complicated to understand?
What don’t you understand?

Are you talking about the controversy?
At one time you would set adjust/weaken during league creation. After league creation you COULD NOT change adjust/weaken BUT you could change recalc to 1, 3, 5 year etc.. I think a lot of us (or at least me) assumed that if you change your recalc setting, then the game would internally changed the weaken/adjust (at least I did) since you couldn’t change it.

Last year or the year before they changed the adjust/weaken so you could change it AFTER league creation. It recently was discovered (or revealed) that the game DOES (or did not) internally modify the adjust/weaken setting based on your recalc setting. What you see is what the game uses. Some (or maybe a lot) of individuals are upset about this revelation and blaming others for not knowing or revealing this information in the past. Basically it is time to move on.

I don't understand how it works nor how to apply it to get the results I want. Neither does anyone else.

[fredbeene]

that is why they invest time in socks and bots. to distract

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Reed

Please elaborate.
Are you saying it’s just to complicated to understand?
What don’t you understand?

Are you talking about the controversy?
At one time you would set adjust/weaken during league creation. After league creation you COULD NOT change adjust/weaken BUT you could change recalc to 1, 3, 5 year etc.. I think a lot of us (or at least me) assumed that if you change your recalc setting, then the game would internally changed the weaken/adjust (at least I did) since you couldn’t change it.

Last year or the year before they changed the adjust/weaken so you could change it AFTER league creation. It recently was discovered (or revealed) that the game DOES (or did not) internally modify the adjust/weaken setting based on your recalc setting. What you see is what the game uses. Some (or maybe a lot) of individuals are upset about this revelation and blaming others for not knowing or revealing this information in the past. Basically it is time to move on.

Could be I lack sufficient attention span currently but the other thread here makes no sense. The scenario I presented is what I'd like to figure out. And also amazed this doesn't get discussed.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

Could be I lack sufficient attention span currently but the other thread here makes no sense. The scenario I presented is what I'd like to figure out. And also amazed this doesn't get discussed.

For the A/W settings the Federal League stats should be treated as MiLB stats. The A/Ws look to MLB ABs. So, if reviewing rosters or looking at BBR stats of the Federal League, those stats won't be in the math. So, a 1914 game with a person that played in the NL in 1913, the FL in 1914 and the FL in 1915, ought to have 0 AB in 1914 and 1915 in the AB count. I know of no special dispensation for the Federal League in the setting. It's just a minor league as far as I know.

If you'd like to talk to someone that does scenarios like this quite a bit, reach out to or search for Pelican as this seems like the type of thing he may have actually run before as a set-up.

[thehef]

This stuck out to me:

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

The A/Ws look to MLB ABs.

Does that literally mean that OOTP sees minor-league guys who went 1-for-4, 20-for-80, and 125-for-500 the same, regardless of A/W settings? Or am I missing a larger context to what you wrote applies? If that latter, please consider that between this and the other thread or two on this stuff, my head is spinning!

[thehef]

Some really good points, IMO:

Originally Posted by Brad K

People had settings with prior versions of OOTP that produced results that they like. Someone who wants to continue with those settings doesn't know what their equivalent is for 25. That needs to be answered before there's a 'move on."

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

There's been way too many posts on all of this without quantitative testing and it was driving me nuts.

Originally Posted by oomm

I don't understand how it works nor how to apply it to get the results I want. Neither does anyone else.

I would sorta combine the last two comments to say that I don't even understand how it works well enough now to consider doing some quantitative testing...

[LansdowneSt]

Pick a MiLB guy with a wild one year out of context year (like Babe T did in the bigs in 1922), and then go low on A/W so that outlier year drives the rating attribute. Then walk up the numbers until you see it adjust. Have all the years be minors in the recalc range. I don’t know what you will find. The minors are obviously already discounted relative to the majors but someone like yourself that looks at minor leagues relative to other minor league guys… I don’t know the A/W effect. Or the sample size effect. For that maybe find guys that hit .333 going 1 for 3 and 200 for 600 (or close enough to each other) and compare them in the same year/league. When I play for fun, it is typically minors off so I have neither anecdotal or quantitative experience to bear with regard to the minors. Maybe there is some fixed MiLB A/W internally.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Pick a MiLB guy with a wild one year out of context year (like Babe T did in the bigs in 1922), and then go low on A/W so that outlier year drives the rating attribute. Then walk up the numbers until you see it adjust. Have all the years be minors in the recalc range. I don’t know what you will find. The minors are obviously already discounted relative to the majors but someone like yourself that looks at minor leagues relative to other minor league guys… I don’t know the A/W effect. Or the sample size effect. For that maybe find guys that hit .333 going 1 for 3 and 200 for 600 (or close enough to each other) and compare them in the same year/league. When I play for fun, it is typically minors off so I have neither anecdotal or quantitative experience to bear with regard to the minors. Maybe there is some fixed MiLB A/W internally.

OK so I've ID'd 6 guys from the 1930 PCL who all hit over .350. The AB's for each guy are 2, 12, 124, 239, 310, and 721.

I'm going to do 1-year recalc and I'm thinking of these combinations of Adj/Wkn for each test:

300/150
200/100
120/20
100/0
0/0

And then I'll see how ratings compare. I would think would give insight on if/how Adj/Wkn settings apply to minor leagues...

Anyone have any suggestions on how I might tweak this testing?

Thanks in advance.

[LansdowneSt]

hef, the only thing I think of it the obvious 100% scouting and I'd go 1-100 as it shows the most "to the user" granularity so it's not a rounding issue among the contestants.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

It looks like it changed in OOTP23 but no one knew it because everyone in the community was answering questions regarding it based on how it had been in OOTP22. To test, select a 1921 game and look at Babe Twombly.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...wombba01.shtml

Here are imports of 1921 in various game editions and the Adjust setting at 300 AB on a 3-year recalc. Weaken setting untouched. 1-100 scale, No scouting on.

Here is an OOTP23 thread on A/W:

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=343720

Matt seems to answer the question correctly (in that he cites the way it is from OOTP23 forward). In the thread though, members of the community, unaware of the change describe their experience differently ... based on the many editions prior to OOTP23. The multiple members of the community that answer the question the way the game had been doing it for so long, don't deserve fault. They too continued with their long-standing settings on A/W throughout the OOTP23 and 24 cycles before realizing it changed. I can see, from Matt's perspective, why it is not in the OOTP25 change notes ... because it's been there for a couple years now.

Looking at OOTP23 though I wonder if it may also be the first time that the game double weighted current year stats by default, adding to the available AB's to count. Consider that in a 1921 game, 3-year recalc, Babe T has 358 AB (183 in 1921 and 175 in 1922) and if the current year of 1921 is double weighted in a 3-year recalc, he has 541 AB to consider.

He looks adjusted with a 300 setting in A/W plus 3-year recalc in prior editions. But in OOTP23, 400 AB Adjust won't knock him down. In fact, testing still... a 500 Adjust setting won't knock him down. A 600 Adjust knocks him some but not nearly like OOTP22, so the meaning of Adjust and the meaning of Weaken have probably changed over time too.

So, in looking at this, it seems the outrage is about three game cycles too late.

As for release notes, this was the only thing I saw in the OOTP23 release notes: * Improved historical balancing of ratings on import/recalc. Historical ratings should better adjust to era, and be more consistent between new games and recalc.

Sometimes brevity is good. Sometimes not.

Anyway, if anyone else wants to actually look at past editions and draw a conclusion, please do. There's been way too many posts on all of this without quantitative testing and it was driving me nuts.

So glad you linked that thread with Matt's explanation. It clearly shows where the misinformation originated. Rain King, states in a post under Matts, the idea that the game adjusts the adjust/weaken settings according to recalc years used. If he didn't I or many others would have done the same thing. It's what we were led to believe.