Interaction Of Settings With Auto-Calc

[Brad K]

There was a request earlier to summarize what "we've learned". Well, for some of "we" the answer is nothing. For others, the following.

[David Watts]

One thing I would like to say is, I'm glad Brad has brought up the subject of pre-calc. I love auto-calc and what it does, but I'm always looking for alternative ways to enjoy the game. I've come to realize I will never be a replay guy, even though a lot of my early years were spent begging for replay features. I've finally come around to the fact that OOTP's greatest attribute is it's ability to perform as the ultimate WHAT-IF time machine. I should probably be a historical development only player, but I just can't stomach Kris Davis Groundhog Day seasons as the norm, so I will always be a recalc guy. When all these discussions started, I came to realize that it's been years, maybe approaching a decade since I even pulled up that statistical accuracy page. Actually forgot it was even there till someone mentioned it. I like my leagues to be reality based and historically believable, but I'm not going to flip out if home runs are up by 10% one year.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by David Watts

One thing I would like to say is, I'm glad Brad has brought up the subject of pre-calc. I love auto-calc and what it does, but I'm always looking for alternative ways to enjoy the game. I've come to realize I will never be a replay guy, even though a lot of my early years were spent begging for replay features. I've finally come around to the fact that OOTP's greatest attribute is it's ability to perform as the ultimate WHAT-IF time machine. I should probably be a historical development only player, but I just can't stomach Kris Davis Groundhog Day seasons as the norm, so I will always be a recalc guy. When all these discussions started, I came to realize that it's been years, maybe approaching a decade since I even pulled up that statistical accuracy page. Actually forgot it was even there till someone mentioned it. I like my leagues to be reality based and historically believable, but I'm not going to flip out if home runs are up by 10% one year.

Just to make sure I understand (honest question, genuinely curious):

Am I correct that your experience is that the development engine with no recalculation tends to produce players that have low variation in their yearly performance? I am assuming this because I would think that your preference for recalc would tend to result in KDGD seasons for him specifically—but, that, on average, the development engine makes GD careers more of the norm. Again, no skepticism implied.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by jcard

Just to make sure I understand (honest question, genuinely curious):

Am I correct that your experience is that the development engine with no recalculation tends to produce players that have low variation in their yearly performance? I am assuming this because I would think that your preference for recalc would tend to result in KDGD seasons for him specifically—but, that, on average, the development engine makes GD careers more of the norm. Again, no skepticism implied.

I don't fault the game. I just think when only ratings are involved the game has a hard time duplicating the real life ups and downs baseball players endure. I love things like a Bryce Harper hitting .330 one season with 42 bombs, followed by a season in which he hits .249 with 24. 3 seasons of a guy hitting .270 with 19-21 homers, followed by 4 of him hitting .281 with 25 just doesn't appeal to me. Same reason I will never use 5 year recalc. I would probably need TCR to go up to 500 if I were to enjoy development only.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I just can't stomach Kris Davis Groundhog Day seasons

I don't understand this reference. He was incredibly successful and consistent until age 30 and he just kind of fell off which likely had a lot to do with the pandemic. Perhaps you meant Chris Davis of Orioles fame, who probably should have hung it up after he hit 30 as well.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

I don't understand this reference. He was incredibly successful and consistent until age 30 and he just kind of fell off which likely had a lot to do with the pandemic. Perhaps you meant Chris Davis of Orioles fame, who probably should have hung it up after he hit 30 as well.

Dude hit .247 for 4 straight years. Had 42, 43 and 48 home runs during the last 3 of those 4 seasons. It happened, but that doesn't mean I want the majority of my leagues players to do the same.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Dude hit .247 for 4 straight years. Had 42, 43 and 48 home runs during the last 3 of those 4 seasons. It happened, but that doesn't mean I want the majority of my leagues players to do the same.

Even more confusing, are you saying you don't want your players to perform well? In 4000 PAs he has a 162-game avg of 37 HRs, so 42 and 43 aren't even that much over his average. That's about a 10-15% variance which you stated you didn't mind seeing. The guy just dropped off at age 30 which happens a lot more than you think. Look up Richard Hidalgo for an even more extreme example.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

Even more confusing, are you saying you don't want your players to perform well? In 4000 PAs he has a 162-game avg of 37 HRs, so 42 and 43 aren't even that much over his average. That's about a 10-15% variance which you stated you didn't mind seeing. The guy just dropped off at age 30 which happens a lot more than you think. Look up Richard Hidalgo for an even more extreme example.

I'm sorry, I'm probably not being clear in what I'm saying. My use of Kris Davis has absolutely zero to do with him falling off the table. Since you brought up Richard Hildalgo, let's use his career, .303, .227, .314, .275,.235, .309, .239, .and .221. That his batting averages 1997-2005. That's perfect. That's why I uses recalc. I want that roller coaster ride. I don't get that with development only. I won't use 5 year recalc for the very same reason. Again, not a criticism of the game at all. Just my preference.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I'm sorry, I'm probably not being clear in what I'm saying. My use of Kris Davis has absolutely zero to do with him falling off the table. Since you brought up Richard Hildalgo, let's use his career, .303, .227, .314, .275,.235, .309, .239, .and .221. That his batting averages 1997-2005. That's perfect. That's why I uses recalc. I want that roller coaster ride. I don't get that with development only. I won't use 5 year recalc for the very same reason. Again, not a criticism of the game at all. Just my preference.

Understood.

[jpeters1734]

Some of you are conflating ratings recalc with league totals recalc.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Some of you are conflating ratings recalc with league totals recalc.

My fault I went off topic.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

When all these discussions started, I came to realize that it's been years, maybe approaching a decade since I even pulled up that statistical accuracy page. Actually forgot it was even there till someone mentioned it. I like my leagues to be reality based and historically believable, but I'm not going to flip out if home runs are up by 10% one year.

More people should forget about that page. "What-if" leagues evolve. Players move to different teams with different park factors, some get injured, some play longer, development and TCR affects them, and fairly quickly the talent in a "what-if" league doesn't match historic talent.

There is no validity to comparing the output of a "what-if" league to historic output. No relevance. It's supposed to perform differently because it is different.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

As we've said repeatedly, the strategy settings and modifiers control the output. Auto-calc, though, can change the settings and modifiers to get to the totals it's aiming for. After the auto-calc runs, it has zero impact on results.

I'm puzzled by the statement that auto-calc "can change the settings and modifiers" as that implies it might or might not. I've never seen a time when it didn't.

It seems "we" must refer to the volunteers who help with the game. They never conceded that auto-calc might over ride strategy even part of the time as you have. They fled the thread after insisting I am wrong about everything.

For years they have posted misinformation about how the game works. If they're unrepentant, the only thing left to do is to ignore them and move on with proper factual documentation.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I'm puzzled by the statement that auto-calc "can change the settings and modifiers" as that implies it might or might not. I've never seen a time when it didn't.

you are arguing semantics. What Matt said is true. It can change settings. not all of them, but some of them.

I can't wait to hear your response

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

you are arguing semantics. What Matt said is true. It can change settings. not all of them, but some of them.

I can't wait to hear your response

You will be waiting for a long time. Brad was banned.

[omg_pwnasaurus]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I want that roller coaster ride. I don't get that with development only.

I find this interesting because that is not my experience with historical/dev only. I started a save in 1983 and Alan Trammell just had a full and bad 1983 season with typical 83 Trammell ratings and so he was a type B FA and I scooped him w/o forfeiting a 1st rounder. He was Trammell for me in 1984 and after. I posted screenshots of the 1983 ratings (at a glance) and the career #'s which varied greatly after that down 1983 year.

I see this type of thing reasonably often in my experience.

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Brad K

There's been a change in OOTP! Sort of.

I suppose any amount of progress is better than none. There's an addition to the page where modifiers are selected. The new part is underlined.





What is disappointing about this change is what is omitted. It states far less than what is already in the OOTP Wiki. It's also vague. Why hold back on in game documentation?

In the Accuracy Settings section HERE the Wiki states concerning auto-calc

"This will ensure the highest level of accuracy to the totals, but it will also hide outliers. For example, if the league has an influx of power hitters, the auto-calc may aggressively lower the HR modifier to ensure the league totals come out accurately."

This is correct except for the phrase "auto-calc may aggressively lower". "May" means "will".

In the same section it is stated "Auto-calc may change some league settings, in order to avoid having modifiers that deviate far from the defaults". What league settings are these? Why, League Strategy settings, of course!

Except it doesn't change League Strategy settings. It gets the same effect by changing the modifiers. And "will" not "may" applies. After the season if auto import of new years settings is enabled, then the strategy settings change.

"Accuracy" has a special and limited meaning in this section. It refers to league totals, not to individual players.

Including a summary of the information already in the Wiki in the game screens would be an improvement. A bigger improvement would be including all the suggestions I've made concerning additions to various in game screens.

Isn't this why the game is pre deterimined in many cases.
you set to have 40 hr season. in sept 30 HR is the highest. players will still knocking out hr to make the output. Feels like it takes the randomness out of it

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by David Watts

One thing I would like to say is, I'm glad Brad has brought up the subject of pre-calc. I love auto-calc and what it does, but I'm always looking for alternative ways to enjoy the game. I've come to realize I will never be a replay guy, even though a lot of my early years were spent begging for replay features. I've finally come around to the fact that OOTP's greatest attribute is it's ability to perform as the ultimate WHAT-IF time machine. I should probably be a historical development only player, but I just can't stomach Kris Davis Groundhog Day seasons as the norm, so I will always be a recalc guy. When all these discussions started, I came to realize that it's been years, maybe approaching a decade since I even pulled up that statistical accuracy page. Actually forgot it was even there till someone mentioned it. I like my leagues to be reality based and historically believable, but I'm not going to flip out if home runs are up by 10% one year.

I just want talent change randomness so we don't know for certain if brett, yount, r jackson will stars or not

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Brad K

More people should forget about that page. "What-if" leagues evolve. Players move to different teams with different park factors, some get injured, some play longer, development and TCR affects them, and fairly quickly the talent in a "what-if" league doesn't match historic talent.

There is no validity to comparing the output of a "what-if" league to historic output. No relevance. It's supposed to perform differently because it is different.

That is fun. But to much WHAT IF. I only want to change a handful of players. ie what if clemente did not die.everything else basically the same. pitts now has clemente and parker and trade bait for more pitching. do they become the team of the 70s?

[beepollen]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

That is fun. But to much WHAT IF. I only want to change a handful of players. ie what if clemente did not die.everything else basically the same. pitts now has clemente and parker and trade bait for more pitching. do they become the team of the 70s?

Yes, I'd like a "What If?" setting. Mine is, what if... Pedro Guerrero doesn't wreck his knee in March '86?