Crazy Bad Performances

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Hawkwing7423

I complained about how bad Mike Trout was, months ago, and he also downgraded from a 100 live to a 98 live.

Yet as of now, he is outperforming Babe Ruth and Ken Griffey, Jr.

Trout - 98 rating / CON 64 / POW 121 / EYE 104 / .,246 / 30 HR 2nd in league

Ruth - 100 rating / CON 86 / POW 156 / EYE 152 / last 2 seasons batted .197 and .164

Griffey Jr - 101 rating / CON 119 / POW 152 / EYE 133 / HR per 162 is 8 and BA is .218

How does the above make any sense? If there's a hidden stat where players have a "good" or "bad" year, it would sure be nice if this was exposed to the manager.

In low diamond, my Roy Halladay is the worst of 18, my Chris Sale is the worst of 12, and my Mike Trout is having a career year. My Toad Ramsey is having his best year for me of 6 years.

I'm a programmer, I hate guesswork. It seems like you have to see who's doing well on Mondays, and if Sale and Halladay are stinking it up again, you have to try some other 100 in their spot. But that reserve 100 may be just as bad, or better, for no apparent reason. It's very frustrating.

It also seems like new players do very badly, for no reason, if you acquire them that season. I mean, KG Jr 8 HR per 162? If they get a large penalty as newly acquired players, why isn't that transparent?

Maybe others enjoy all this guesswork...

I can't say I blame you for your frustration. Back in the early versions of PT there was some variation - as you would expect and want - but the current variations just seem to be all over the board... FAR MORE than the variations I get in the classic game, and I have no idea why.

Your last point gripes me too... get a new player and he stinks up the dugout; sometimes for a few game months, sometimes the entire season. Again, no rhyme or reason why.

I hate to admit it but I'm really unhappy about PT right now. I moved back to the classic game and I'm having a ball.

[Big Poppy]

Just wait until OOTP builds a more advanced AI engine. Hopefully the difference between Google Earth 15 years ago, and now.

[usa_hank]

Guess which Sheff is mine? Yep, -0.7 WAR Sheff. The very bottom. I'm telling you, there either has to be some hidden rating that affects their performance, or I just have horrible luck. As the repeatedly bad performances build up, I can't help but think it's a hidden attribute. Or it's my "strategy" which I doubt would put all of my players into the bottom 3rd in performance.

My Yount is in the bottom 25% in pretty much all categories of the 21 Younts in my league. My Halladay is in the 4th worst Halladay of 24 teams who are using him as a regular starter. My Carew, who only plays in about half my games, has the 2nd worst WAR and BABIP of about 26 "ACTIVE" Carews in my league. My Honus Wagner is in the bottom third of Wagers. I've even given up and brought in Luke Appling because, eff it, why bother playing players who aren't performing? The only thing keeping me from being the 2003 Tigers in the league is that I'm finally getting good performances out of Sale and Whitey this season. And to put some perspective to this, I'm in the easiest division in the league in terms of opposing team win % and RDIFF.

I think I might sell off every good player on my team at this point and just open packs for a day, at least I'll get some enjoyment out of it.

[zevus]

Originally Posted by hibees70

Big Poppy talks about “std.deviation in financial markets”.
I know nothing about that but if you had RNG like this in an rpg there would be outrage.
Still love the base game but they’ll get no more money from me.

indeed

I'm still doing some weekly drafts but losing interest in those, too.

I realize that this is the epitome of a "pay to win" game, but I was thinking that some bit of "skill" might be involved. I've spent a couple months trying to discover some hidden truths but have come up empty, alas!

I'm inclined to believe at this point that each card has some hidden value that is not visible to the player & an aggregation of these (like sum of all your "played" cards in a game) is how the winner & scores are determined. Only then does it utilize these ratings that we *can* see to generate the stats.

It fits in well with LeeD's theory ... just that what cards are "second-rate" is determined by some hidden value, and being "Massively Skilled" at handpicking your cards based on eras and their displayed stats, well ... not gonna do you a whole lot of good, because that newly introduced 101 card is *supposed* to be better than your 100 card so it comes with the higher internal value that determines actual winner and score margins, even if over some billion game sample size it generates lesser stats than the 100 card. It improves all the other cards you're using because it generates more wins and better run differentials for you!

[usa_hank]

Why can't the devs respond to threads like this? I don't understand. Stating there's a hidden attribute or that the aggregate of all players on your team affects individual performance is not exposing some secret sauce that can show other people how to make this game. It's disappointing to have so many people complaining about this and zero response from the devs.

Maybe it's a good time for us all to update our reviews on Steam. Or better yet, time for some competition...this has become like Madden. Why make something better if there's nothing else close? Just keep the same formula and rake in oodles of cash from the robots who buy it every single year.

Originally Posted by zevus

indeed

I'm still doing some weekly drafts but losing interest in those, too.

I realize that this is the epitome of a "pay to win" game, but I was thinking that some bit of "skill" might be involved. I've spent a couple months trying to discover some hidden truths but have come up empty, alas!

I'm inclined to believe at this point that each card has some hidden value that is not visible to the player & an aggregation of these (like sum of all your "played" cards in a game) is how the winner & scores are determined. Only then does it utilize these ratings that we *can* see to generate the stats.

It fits in well with LeeD's theory ... just that what cards are "second-rate" is determined by some hidden value, and being "Massively Skilled" at handpicking your cards based on eras and their displayed stats, well ... not gonna do you a whole lot of good, because that newly introduced 101 card is *supposed* to be better than your 100 card so it comes with the higher internal value that determines actual winner and score margins, even if over some billion game sample size it generates lesser stats than the 100 card. It improves all the other cards you're using because it generates more wins and better run differentials for you!

[rburgh]

Frequently hit below the Mendoza line. OPS is a much better performance indicator for all hitters in all environments.

This week is a 70's theme week. You know, back when they called a strike a strike and some balls strikes too. Also this was the pre-roids era so the locker room didn't look like a bunch of contestants for Mr. America. Batting is going to be suppressed this week.

[usa_hank]

Again, we're comparing apples to apples. It's not like we're comparing two different players in two different leagues. These are the same players in the same leagues, who are facing the same competition in the same normalized environments. This is as apples to apples as you can get.

I don't think anyone is saying "oh my guy is hitting .213 so I hate him for it!" More like "my guy is hitting .213 and everyone elses is at .265." Their same player has the same eye rating :P

Originally Posted by rburgh

Frequently hit below the Mendoza line. OPS is a much better performance indicator for all hitters in all environments.

This week is a 70's theme week. You know, back when they called a strike a strike and some balls strikes too. Also this was the pre-roids era so the locker room didn't look like a bunch of contestants for Mr. America. Batting is going to be suppressed this week.

[dishnet34]

There is not a hidden attribute or any of that crap. Y'all need to learn what variance is in statistical probability. You're just getting crap luck, that's it, that's all. There's not "hidden attributes" or anything nefarious like that.

[usa_hank]

See, there are two types of distribution in which you can generate random numbers: straight, and Gaussian (aka "normal"). You need to learn what generating numbers in Gaussian distribution does, how you can adjust the standard deviation of said number generation, and why it's important and more realistic for a stats-based game.

Just sayin. If there's not a hidden attribute, then they need to fix their engine, because it's far too random to be relevant.

Originally Posted by dishnet34

There is not a hidden attribute or any of that crap. Y'all need to learn what variance is in statistical probability. You're just getting crap luck, that's it, that's all. There's not "hidden attributes" or anything nefarious like that.

[Sinnerman]

Originally Posted by dishnet34

There is not a hidden attribute or any of that crap. Y'all need to learn what variance is in statistical probability. You're just getting crap luck, that's it, that's all. There's not "hidden attributes" or anything nefarious like that.

Variances in performance are obviously manufactured (randomly?) pre season. If my Alex Rodriguez 101 is constantly subpar all season long, including his negative defense!!! this in not a (random?) game by game "variance" in RNG. Do you not question the simulation when you see a Wagner with -1.5 WAR in high silver league? You really think that is game by game variance...

Your argument only holds if the game to game variances in outcomes are beyond the realms of reality. I propose that due to the consistency of player cards either sucking or excelling for entire seasons, there is more to it than you think. I am convinced that there IS a season by season modifier to each card that determines it's performance relative to others.

When top tier players consistently perform poorly (or subpar players consistently overperform) over a season something is going on besides "bad luck". Unless your definition of "bad luck" is whatever your simulation decides a cards fate pre-season.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify. TLDR minus ranting... Month by month performance of cards is usually somewhat consistent over a season. This indicates a seasonal variance being more important than game by game variance in the game engine.

EDIT 2: By seasonal variance I mean there is a seasonal modifier to cards probably based on "luck".

[Big Poppy]

Originally Posted by usa_hank

See, there are two types of distribution in which you can generate random numbers: straight, and Gaussian (aka "normal"). You need to learn what generating numbers in Gaussian distribution does, how you can adjust the standard deviation of said number generation, and why it's important and more realistic for a stats-based game.

Just sayin. If there's not a hidden attribute, then they need to fix their engine, because it's far too random to be relevant.

Hello Siri, please use "Gaussian" in a sentence.

[usa_hank]

You bring up an interesting point about the seasonal variance modifier. I know they definitely have a "hot" or "cold" modifier. I wonder if they randomize that at the start of the season for every player - so maybe we perceive it as a seasonal variance, but it's just because they start out with a negative modifier, making it hard for them to get back on track. Hence why my Honus Wagner has repeatedly started out like he's Javy Baez from the last 2 seasons.

Originally Posted by Sinnerman

Variances in performance are obviously manufactured (randomly?) pre season. If my Alex Rodriguez 101 is constantly subpar all season long, including his negative defense!!! this in not a (random?) game by game "variance" in RNG. Do you not question the simulation when you see a Wagner with -1.5 WAR in high silver league? You really think that is game by game variance...

Your argument only holds if the game to game variances in outcomes are beyond the realms of reality. I propose that due to the consistency of player cards either sucking or excelling for entire seasons, there is more to it than you think. I am convinced that there IS a season by season modifier to each card that determines it's performance relative to others.

When top tier players consistently perform poorly (or subpar players consistently overperform) over a season something is going on besides "bad luck". Unless your definition of "bad luck" is whatever your simulation decides a cards fate pre-season.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify. TLDR minus ranting... Month by month performance of cards is usually somewhat consistent over a season. This indicates a seasonal variance being more important than game by game variance in the game engine.

EDIT 2: By seasonal variance I mean there is a seasonal modifier to cards probably based on "luck".

[Sinnerman]

Originally Posted by usa_hank

You bring up an interesting point about the seasonal variance modifier. I know they definitely have a "hot" or "cold" modifier. I wonder if they randomize that at the start of the season for every player - so maybe we perceive it as a seasonal variance, but it's just because they start out with a negative modifier, making it hard for them to get back on track. Hence why my Honus Wagner has repeatedly started out like he's Javy Baez from the last 2 seasons.

I'm certain there is a seasonal modifier in Perfect Team. I've played near 1000 simulated seasons in the base game (from OOTP 2012 to 2023, skipping 2-3 years of new releases here and there) and the season to season variances that are plainly obvious in PT do not exist in the regular game. Barring injury and aging in the base game, the only cards that show the wild season to season variances that exist in PT are those with extreme profiles. For example the super power hitter with no contact, pitcher with no control, etc...

I (finally) spent all my live speculation money on a 101 rated outfielder last season and he won MVP. After the first month this season he has negative WAR... "Small sample size" but I've seen this pattern in PT 2020, 2022, 2023, and of course 2026. If he doesn't recover after next month the safe bet is to bench him because the woe usually lasts the season.

EDIT: I'd like to add there is another possible reason, in that there is no seasonal modifier and just by constant and extreme bad luck your (for example) Sheffield sucks. But one wonders why week after week he constantly underperforms while other Sheffields consistently perform well. It is possible the game by game variances are so extreme to allow this, however the consistency of good and bad luck per season, per card in PT means this is unlikely. Also, there is definitely chance involved game by game, or week by week. Most obviously performances recognized with "batter of the week" or "pitcher of the month" awards which may be won with cards having otherwise a crap season. Or platoon vs RHP Zack Wheat benched with a 78 OPS whacking 2 HR in a game vs a LHP as a substitute (yes this happened), etc...

[Sinnerman]

Yes, I do like to beat a dead horse. Got my hands on a Joe Cronin variant and the "variance" lords do not approve. My base level Cronin probably overperformed for 7 seasons. What is killing me is my L5 variant Joe Cronin has no defense (notice the ZR). Backup vsR and vsL for the rest of the season. EDIT: fail trying to organize the pictures.

[Bunktown Ballers]

'

Originally Posted by usa_hank

I can't believe how badly my team is doing in Low Diamond. I've been rattling around in LD, this being the fourth season, and my players just aren't performing. I honestly can't understand why my Sheffield hits .225 and only 15 HR every year when I see him hitting .260+ and 20 HR for everyone else. I can't figure out why my Helton hits .210, or my Rod Carew never hits over .260. I can't figure out why my Chris Sale has an ERA of 5.3 w ith this being his 3rd season as a starter for me, and a K/9 of 6 (Molina catching). I can't figure out why my Whitey Ford has an ERA of 4.6 over the past 3 seasons in LD, etc. I can only assume people play more RH batters so that's why lefties get hit so hard, but when I look at other teams in my league who have been starting Ford and Sale, they are getting 3.5 ERAs and closer to 8+ K/9.

I get there are external factors like men on base and park factors, but...wow. My luck has to be the worst. I feel like Dave Stieb would play better than Sale, and my Tim Raines has outplayed my Sheffield, Helton, Carew, with a consistent .265 avg and around 11 HR, etc. Crazy.

We've all been there with bad performances in a year, but this has been year after year for these guys for me! Ugh. Tempted to sell off the team and buy other players.

My favorite thing is my 77 Pitcher card with much lower ratings than my 100 non live Pitcher card out performs the 100 card yearly. But 100 cards early in year are not worthy. And MLB untested player cards that have never been about 3A come out as 100+ with ungodly rating across the board even better the HOFer cards

[zevus]

My primary issue is that there's no way to tell how any of the settings used are impacting the simulations.

Experimenting for months with the "sliders of strategy" taught me two things: jack and ****. e.g. Tim Raines getting caught stealing at twice the rate in a season where I had the stealing slider tuned at 25% (in "modern settings") vs being much more successful with it tuned at 100% (in "1987 settings") ... or a Whitey Ford that I have set to the max possible "pitch around" leading the league in the least amt of walks per 9. All this *could* be caused by (extreme) variance or it could be that these settings are a sham attempt to convince players that the simulations are more deep than they actually are.

There's not even something as rudimentary as information in the game log about when various strategies are being used (infield in, outfield in, shifts, pitch around, etc, etc).

Surely the game log could tell me when the infield is in in the 9th inning and then the result of the play. Or maybe not. Sliders of strategy, with zero feedback provided to the player about their usage. LOL.

If the game wasn't useful as a way to learn some historical player names, well ... would have quit messing with it months ago. I was thinking maybe at some point I'd care about "Perfect League" -- like if I ever discovered some "strategy" that wasn't just spending the most money. Failed!

I'll include a couple of final attachments ... since so many replies here are about variation, I'll include my Luis Gonzalez (from the last PTCS). League MVP in 2042, all-star in 2043 (in low diamond), and now negative WAR in 2044 (in high gold!).

Also my 1.08 million perfect points, 3775 clubhouse points and all the player packs I'm not going to bother opening.