Why historical beta team raved out OOTP 2007

[bababui]

Originally Posted by delta

I don't really know if I understand this sentiment. If you just want to see the reproduction of actual historical results there's a site you might want to check out: www.baseball-reference.com

They're all there.

No kidding. Historical play would indicate using real historic factors. As I mentioned in another thread, it would be better if there were a set of mental/emotional ratings that would help mirror reality. Players should be rated on things like discipline and controversy. Players high in controversy might be guys who like to party. What would have happened if guys like Mickey Mantle and Don Newcombe werent alcoholics? But historical simmers dont want ratings such as these because they say it would distort reality. But dont they in fact relect reality?

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by rasnell

1. We don't lose Ted Williams for four or five years of his prime and he actually sets every MLB record for BA, hits, HR, OB.

There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.

(Sorry; it just had to be said.)

[rbartlett]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by rasnell
1. We don't lose Ted Williams for four or five years of his prime and he actually sets every MLB record for BA, hits, HR, OB.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.

(Sorry; it just had to be said.)

Not to start and arguement... but I'd argue that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter that ever lived.

I think that moniker has to go to Babe Ruth because of what he accomplished over his career... at a time when nobody else was doing it.

A lot of their career numbers are obviously very similar... and it goes without saying that if you don't lose Williams for nearly 5 years to military service that he probably sets quite a few records at that time.... but a lot of that has to do with longevity (an arguement that many make against Hank Aaron as well)... than with doing something outstanding (he only hit over 40 home runs in a year once)....

this is taking NOTHING away from him as a hitter... but when you're Babe Ruth and you're 'outhomering' whole other teams... I don't see how anyone could effectively argue that he's not the greatest player to ever play the game.

If Babe didn't spend parts of 4 seasons pitching and just hit full time then who knows what he might have done as well.

That's my opinion.

On topic... I just downloaded the face-packs for historical play tonight... and fired up a real historical league for the first time since playing OOTP 2007... and I spent the rest of the evening raving to anyone that would listen... including everyone in this old High Heat league I am in... about how incredible this sim is.

I think I converted 2 or 3 guys over to OOTP and they promised to download the trial version within the next couple of days and give it a shot.

[Curtis]

Do we HAVE to go back on topic?

You have a good point, rbartlett, but I don't think the circumstances are quite the same.

Babe Ruth had a great team around him. He had Lou Gherig protecting him in the lineup in later years, and generally good talent surrounding him in his early years (including when in Boston). Also, 'The House That Ruth Built' was designed for lefthanded hitters, which Ruth (and Williams) was.

Fenway was designed for righthanded hitters, so Williams was facing an adverse park modifier. It's been (convincingly, I think) argued that Williams should have been traded for DiMaggio because both players would've done better in the other's park. Williams also had a pretty good crew around him much of the time, but no one who could protect him in the lineup, and no one who came near Gherig's home run production.

I've heard that if Williams hadn't felt he had to pull the ball for home runs (into a deep part of his park), he could've hit ten fewer homers a year and hit for a twenty point higher average. If he'd played in Yankee Stadium, there would've been three other guys to hit the homers for him, ANd all those ball that died in deep right in fenway would've been homers anyway, so he could've had the power ANd a higher average.

But, we'll never know. (Which is why it's fun to argue over!) I do believe that Babe Ruth is the best baseball player of all time, but I only put him tied for second (with Ty Cobb) as a hitter. If Ty Cobb had been born ten years later… hoowie!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by bababui

As I mentioned in another thread, it would be better if there were a set of mental/emotional ratings that would help mirror reality.

And how exactly do you quantify mental/emotional ratings into statistics? Such ratings might offer a "fun" factor for fictional play but I'm at a loss as to how they would be derived from historical player statistics...

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And how exactly do you quantify mental/emotional ratings into statistics? Such ratings might offer a "fun" factor for fictional play but I'm at a loss as to how they would be derived from historical player statistics...

Stats can only account for so much. Take Mickey Mantle. If you want to mathematically model his career arc, without the artifical absurdity of statistical recalculation, then its necessary to account for his off the field decision making. Thus the necessity of a rating for 'Professionalism'. He would rank low in that. Pete Rose, a much less gifted athlete, would rank at the very top. Football Manager already uses mental/emotional ratings and produces a very satisfactory product.

[rasnell]

Originally Posted by redsox45

Lahman 5.4 with 3 year recalc is the best way to go. You should get pretty solid results withthat.

Will

Same for me.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by bababui

No kidding. Historical play would indicate using real historic factors. As I mentioned in another thread, it would be better if there were a set of mental/emotional ratings that would help mirror reality. Players should be rated on things like discipline and controversy. Players high in controversy might be guys who like to party. What would have happened if guys like Mickey Mantle and Don Newcombe werent alcoholics? But historical simmers dont want ratings such as these because they say it would distort reality. But dont they in fact relect reality?

Maybe Markus should just copy and paste all the news, transactions, and player/team stats from 1901-2006, and Bob's your uncle, you've got your historical factors modelled.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by bababui

Stats can only account for so much. Take Mickey Mantle. If you want to mathematically model his career arc, without the artifical absurdity of statistical recalculation, then its necessary to account for his off the field decision making. Thus the necessity of a rating for 'Professionalism'. He would rank low in that. Pete Rose, a much less gifted athlete, would rank at the very top. Football Manager already uses mental/emotional ratings and produces a very satisfactory product.

But FM doesn't model past seasons, does it? It projects players stats into the future, which no-one can prove/disprove. In historical play, all you've got is the stats that happened - irrespective of that player's personality.

For example, Mark Teixeira batted .282 with 33 HR and 110 RBI in 2006, and who to me seems to be a good guy to have in the clubhouse. What would his stats be if he was a clubhouse cancer? Would his average go up by 20 points or his RBI's go down by 10 runs? Would this be applicable to everyone, or would everyone have different outcomes to a similar trait?

The only thing you can definitively say is true is the raw stats - which were accumulated irrespective of any personality issues/strengths that player had in that season. Anything else would be subjective, and therefore not representative of historical statistics.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Sdpm100

Maybe Markus should just copy and paste all the news, transactions, and player/team stats from 1901-2006, and Bob's your uncle, you've got your historical factors modelled.

Ummmm..OK

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Sdpm100

But FM doesn't model past seasons, does it? It projects players stats into the future, which no-one can prove/disprove. In historical play, all you've got is the stats that happened - irrespective of that player's personality.

For example, Mark Teixeira batted .282 with 33 HR and 110 RBI in 2006, and who to me seems to be a good guy to have in the clubhouse. What would his stats be if he was a clubhouse cancer? Would his average go up by 20 points or his RBI's go down by 10 runs? Would this be applicable to everyone, or would everyone have different outcomes to a similar trait?

The only thing you can definitively say is true is the raw stats - which were accumulated irrespective of any personality issues/strengths that player had in that season. Anything else would be subjective, and therefore not representative of historical statistics.

Actually FM models the past season with its player ratings and projects them into the future. Its rating system is much more realistic than the OOTP system.

There has throughout human history been great resistance to what we might call progress. It causes anxiety and uncertainty in the older generations. But it also usually leads to better stuff. OOTP is certainly a vast improvement on OOTP 6.51. The OOTP2006 experience while bad in the moment has led to a better game. Lets let the game continue to evolve.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by bababui

Actually FM models the past season with its player ratings and projects them into the future. Its rating system is much more realistic than the OOTP system.

There has throughout human history been great resistance to what we might call progress. It causes anxiety and uncertainty in the older generations. But it also usually leads to better stuff. OOTP is certainly a vast improvement on OOTP 6.51. The OOTP2006 experience while bad in the moment has led to a better game. Lets let the game continue to evolve.

FM models the current season, yes, but it doesn't use statistics to rate the players - team/league researchers do that.
It seems though you've ignored what LGO and I have said - how do you quantify these personality traits to keep the statistics accurate, and why do you want to do that in the first place, because the stats are the stats?
You didn't respond to my example that I put forward to describe how you'd do this.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Sdpm100

FM models the current season, yes, but it doesn't use statistics to rate the players - team/league researchers do that.
It seems though you've ignored what LGO and I have said - how do you quantify these personality traits to keep the statistics accurate, and why do you want to do that in the first place, because the stats are the stats?
You didn't respond to my example that I put forward to describe how you'd do this.

Since when did OOTP become simply an historic numbers regurgitator?? If it ever became so it will be no more than a fringe product. While historical simmers are an important part of the community they are by no means the whole comminity. And reproducing stats in no way is reproducing baseball. Baseball is played by people. People cant be reduced to a stats set.

Many people prefer to play a more realistic, nuanced game. Thankfully, OOTP can serve noth masters.

[Curtis]

baba, old bui, I do have to admire your persistance. I like your ideas, but I disagree that OotPB can serve two masters. I'd like to see OotPB remain stats-based, but see Inside the Park revived with (among other things) your emotional/mental ratings implemented. And if Markus ever found a way to tie ootpb2008 and ITP2 together…

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Curtis

baba, old bui, I do have to admire your persistance. I like your ideas, but I disagree that OotPB can serve two masters. I'd like to see OotPB remain stats-based, but see Inside the Park revived with (among other things) your emotional/mental ratings implemented. And if Markus ever found a way to tie ootpb2008 and ITP2 together…

Maybe you are right. I would like to keep the conversation alive because you never know what stroke of genius markus might come up with next.

[SSG Troyer]

OOTP can serve both masters, as long as any personality influances were able to be turned off at user's option ...

The key here is customization. Like Market Share being being determined before the initial draft based on city population, or after the initial draft, based on the salaries of the drafted players. Both ways fit the needs of an entirely different set of players. Changes need to be made to fit one set, because the game now exclusively satisfies the other. But the user needs to be able to pick which set of rules to use.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by SSG Troyer

OOTP can serve both masters, as long as any personality influances were able to be turned off at user's option ...

The key here is customization. Like Market Share being being determined before the initial draft based on city population, or after the initial draft, based on the salaries of the drafted players. Both ways fit the needs of an entirely different set of players. Changes need to be made to fit one set, because the game now exclusively satisfies the other. But the user needs to be able to pick which set of rules to use.

Agreed

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by bababui

Stats can only account for so much.

Oh boy, I know some who'd jump all over you for saying something like that. But I'll let those more sabermetric-minded folks handle that fight...

Originally Posted by bababui

Take Mickey Mantle. If you want to mathematically model his career arc, without the artifical absurdity of statistical recalculation, then its necessary to account for his off the field decision making. Thus the necessity of a rating for 'Professionalism'. He would rank low in that. Pete Rose, a much less gifted athlete, would rank at the very top.

And how do you know those should be the ratings? What objective standards are you using to arrive at those conclusions? How do these ratings affect on-the-field performance? To what degree?