Wondering/Confused.

cephalon · 04-20-2004, 11:15 AM

Hey all... I'm messing around with the new abilities to change created player skill using percentages.

What I'm confused at is that most of the skills seem to do pretty much the same thing as the ERA settings as far as statistical implications go. Some of the modifiers come in handy when fine-tuning the era (not ERA) settings... For example, I set my starters endurance to weak, but in the percentages, upped their endurance by 15%... This tends to find a middle ground between weak and normal.

Ultimately, though, what I'd like is the ability to create a larger gap between the greatest players and the average players. It seems that the only way to do this would be if the % modifiers to created player skill were exponents, instead of flat percentages. With this method, you could use, perhaps a 1.1 exponent, and if that was applied to all skill levels at creation, it would both normalize the average players, and make the created players better.

Does anyone know of a way using the current system that I could achieve my goals?

For example, I've just finished a 80 year fictional sim, using default ERA settings. My overall career leaders are more in less in-line with where I want them, but I've got more 500 and 600 homerun and 3000 hit players than I want. Is there any way for me to keep the top guys where they are, while making it less likely for other players to hit 500 homeruns? It seems that on the current system, my career homerun leaders will be 700,690,680,670,660,650,640, ect.

How can I make this gap larger, so that there will be more of a bell curve when it comes to career stats?

Gastric ReFlux · 04-20-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cephalon
Hey all... I'm messing around with the new abilities to change created player skill using percentages.

What I'm confused at is that most of the skills seem to do pretty much the same thing as the ERA settings as far as statistical implications go. Some of the modifiers come in handy when fine-tuning the era (not ERA) settings... For example, I set my starters endurance to weak, but in the percentages, upped their endurance by 15%... This tends to find a middle ground between weak and normal.

Ultimately, though, what I'd like is the ability to create a larger gap between the greatest players and the average players. It seems that the only way to do this would be if the % modifiers to created player skill were exponents, instead of flat percentages. With this method, you could use, perhaps a 1.1 exponent, and if that was applied to all skill levels at creation, it would both normalize the average players, and make the created players better.

Does anyone know of a way using the current system that I could achieve my goals?

For example, I've just finished a 80 year fictional sim, using default ERA settings. My overall career leaders are more in less in-line with where I want them, but I've got more 500 and 600 homerun and 3000 hit players than I want. Is there any way for me to keep the top guys where they are, while making it less likely for other players to hit 500 homeruns? It seems that on the current system, my career homerun leaders will be 700,690,680,670,660,650,640, ect.

How can I make this gap larger, so that there will be more of a bell curve when it comes to career stats?

This is a very good question. And I haven't figured out an easy and elegant way to do what you envision, creating a talent pool with a large spread between to best players and replacement level players.

Perhaps one way it could be done is to adjust the player modifiers before their creation. For example, leave it normal one year, then have a year to create the super players, then revert back to normal.

treedom · 04-20-2004, 11:34 AM

Maybe the easiest way to do it is to turn down the talent pool modifiers, and then go in and manually boost up a couple guys every ammy draft. Not elegant, but I think it would do what you want.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-20-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by treedom
Maybe the easiest way to do it is to turn down the talent pool modifiers, and then go in and manually boost up a couple guys every ammy draft. Not elegant, but I think it would do what you want.

Yeah, that works too.

Although I think it could be accomplished in the way I described above.

For example:

1901--no modifications
1902--boost Contact Hitting
1903--drop Contact Hitting
1904--revert to no modifications

It might take some testing, but in that way you'd be creating a larger talent spread for Contact Hitting.

Kemp · 04-20-2004, 11:54 AM

I think you need to adjust the player DEVELOPMENT modifiers, NOT the player CREATION modifiers.

That way, your star players will become stars quicker (as they reach their max potential sooner) while the average players, who will peak at much lower levels, will max out earlier.

This way your star players will actually be stars for a longer period of time which should allow them to “pull away” from the pack from a career stats standpoint.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-20-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kemp
I think you need to adjust the player DEVELOPMENT modifiers, NOT the player CREATION modifiers.

That way, your star players will become stars quicker (as they reach their max potential sooner) while the average players, who will peak at much lower levels, will max out earlier.

This way your star players will actually be stars for a longer period of time which should allow them to “pull away” from the pack from a career stats standpoint.

Interesting idea, but I don't know if that would really accomplish the idea of creating a more diverse talent pool.

Kemp · 04-20-2004, 12:06 PM

I think it might. Let's say Player A has a talent rating of 20 (on a 1 to 20 scale) while Player B has a talent rating of 10.

Given normal development, Player A will probably go from 4 to 5 to 7 to ... etc, etc up to 20 (let's assume the player "pans out").

Player B will go from 4 to 5 to .... up to 10.

This process will be gradual and take a number of years. But if you jack up the development speed, the players will LEAP very quickly to their full potential which should set them apart much more quickly than the first scenario where they both develop more slowly.

I would say that increasing the development speed would DEFINITELY fix the problem he's having with his leader boards. Because in that case, the true stars will be great for a longer period of time allowing them to "pull away" from the pack over time.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-20-2004, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kemp
I think it might. Let's say Player A has a talent rating of 20 (on a 1 to 20 scale) while Player B has a talent rating of 10.

Given normal development, Player A will probably go from 4 to 5 to 7 to ... etc, etc up to 20 (let's assume the player "pans out").

Player B will go from 4 to 5 to .... up to 10.

This process will be gradual and take a number of years. But if you jack up the development speed, the players will LEAP very quickly to their full potential which should set them apart much more quickly than the first scenario where they both develop more slowly.

I would say that increasing the development speed would DEFINITELY fix the problem he's having with his leader boards. Because in that case, the true stars will be great for a longer period of time allowing them to "pull away" from the pack over time.

True, but the issue I have with this is that it breaks from what might be considered normal development, and doesn't solve the underlying issue about how the talent pool is made up.

That's why I would prefer to use modifiers on the player creation as I suggested above, in some sort of variance from year to year.

EDIT: While your suggestion might accomplish the effect desired, it seems almost like a symptomatic treatment.

Kemp · 04-20-2004, 12:24 PM

Don't get me wrong, I won't argue it's "realistic". Personally I wouldn't do it in my league. But the original poster seems to want to see great variance between his star players and the random every day player.

I think his best alternative, if he wanted to play it straighter, would be to decrease the player creation figures and manually increase certain players. As treedom mentioned above.

cephalon · 04-20-2004, 04:17 PM

Some good suggestions... none of them perfect... I tend to like the idea of changing the created player modifiers around from year to year better, since it seems a bit more random.... Even if I put the homeruns up 50% for a given year, it's no guarantee that someone from that class will hit 600....

Any others have ideas on this?

04-20-2004, 11:15 AM	#1
cephalon Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 36	Wondering/Confused. Hey all... I'm messing around with the new abilities to change created player skill using percentages. What I'm confused at is that most of the skills seem to do pretty much the same thing as the ERA settings as far as statistical implications go. Some of the modifiers come in handy when fine-tuning the era (not ERA) settings... For example, I set my starters endurance to weak, but in the percentages, upped their endurance by 15%... This tends to find a middle ground between weak and normal. Ultimately, though, what I'd like is the ability to create a larger gap between the greatest players and the average players. It seems that the only way to do this would be if the % modifiers to created player skill were exponents, instead of flat percentages. With this method, you could use, perhaps a 1.1 exponent, and if that was applied to all skill levels at creation, it would both normalize the average players, and make the created players better. Does anyone know of a way using the current system that I could achieve my goals? For example, I've just finished a 80 year fictional sim, using default ERA settings. My overall career leaders are more in less in-line with where I want them, but I've got more 500 and 600 homerun and 3000 hit players than I want. Is there any way for me to keep the top guys where they are, while making it less likely for other players to hit 500 homeruns? It seems that on the current system, my career homerun leaders will be 700,690,680,670,660,650,640, ect. How can I make this gap larger, so that there will be more of a bell curve when it comes to career stats?

04-20-2004, 11:34 AM	#3
treedom Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Transylvania Posts: 2,900	Maybe the easiest way to do it is to turn down the talent pool modifiers, and then go in and manually boost up a couple guys every ammy draft. Not elegant, but I think it would do what you want. __________________ A rake and a roustabout.

04-20-2004, 04:17 PM	#10
cephalon Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 36	thanks... and bump. Some good suggestions... none of them perfect... I tend to like the idea of changing the created player modifiers around from year to year better, since it seems a bit more random.... Even if I put the homeruns up 50% for a given year, it's no guarantee that someone from that class will hit 600.... Any others have ideas on this?

04-20-2004, 11:54 AM	#5
Kemp All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,181	I think you need to adjust the player DEVELOPMENT modifiers, NOT the player CREATION modifiers. That way, your star players will become stars quicker (as they reach their max potential sooner) while the average players, who will peak at much lower levels, will max out earlier. This way your star players will actually be stars for a longer period of time which should allow them to “pull away” from the pack from a career stats standpoint.

04-20-2004, 12:06 PM	#7
Kemp All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,181	I think it might. Let's say Player A has a talent rating of 20 (on a 1 to 20 scale) while Player B has a talent rating of 10. Given normal development, Player A will probably go from 4 to 5 to 7 to ... etc, etc up to 20 (let's assume the player "pans out"). Player B will go from 4 to 5 to .... up to 10. This process will be gradual and take a number of years. But if you jack up the development speed, the players will LEAP very quickly to their full potential which should set them apart much more quickly than the first scenario where they both develop more slowly. I would say that increasing the development speed would DEFINITELY fix the problem he's having with his leader boards. Because in that case, the true stars will be great for a longer period of time allowing them to "pull away" from the pack over time.

04-20-2004, 12:24 PM	#9
Kemp All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,181	Don't get me wrong, I won't argue it's "realistic". Personally I wouldn't do it in my league. But the original poster seems to want to see great variance between his star players and the random every day player. I think his best alternative, if he wanted to play it straighter, would be to decrease the player creation figures and manually increase certain players. As treedom mentioned above.