Historical Player Ratings v. Present Day - Page 2

captainbuttercream · 12-04-2018, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

I used to think that. And the fielding adjustment does seem to be off (80's catchers are too good, pre 1970 players make too many errors). But those historical players are often the really good deals, despite their low OVR.

If you see a team and half his lineup are historical guys, that's probably someone who is going to overachieve. It might not be accurate, but it does create a balance.

I'm pretty sure I saw a Mike Schmidt once. But thinking about it, I've never seen a Barry Bonds. Are they out there? If not, is that because Bonds had some weird thing going on with the MLBPA? I remember him not being named specifically in the old EA baseball games.

Bonds has 5 cards, i think. A 1990 rated 95, a peak rated 96, 2001 rated 97, a 2002 rated 100, and a 2004 rated 99.

Even with all those options, there are still people like me that gripe about not seeing a 1992 or 1996 card. The guy just had too many good years.

His cards almost never hit the auction house, that's probably why you haven't seen one.

Bagpipes5 · 12-04-2018, 02:45 PM

Hmm...so why the discrepancy? This is from a fresh '99 Historical save.

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainbuttercream

IIRC, all historical pitcher velocities were automatically generated so some will be incorrect.

Randy Johnson was (is) listed as throwing in the mid 90s, too. If you report it, then it might get fixed.

Why don't they just load the actual player from the database? There is no reason to automatically generate anything, we have this information already. That is very, very odd to me.

Orcin · 12-04-2018, 02:53 PM

That looks more like Wagner to me.

Bagpipes5 · 12-04-2018, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

That looks more like Wagner to me.

Agreed. I had a '99 Wagner posted. Here is the correct '98 Wagner, they are nearly identical anyway.

Bagpipes5 · 12-04-2018, 03:23 PM

Lou Brock from a 1974 Historical:

Lou Brock from my Perfect Team:

Germaniac · 12-04-2018, 05:23 PM

I agree. I think modern players, some with only a couple of years in the majors, are rated much higher than historical players with really great, sometimes even HOF-, careers

Bagpipes5 · 12-05-2018, 02:12 PM

Just an update to this thread. I figured out that you can search for cards for a particular team by typing in the team's city or abbreviation in the name field of the market search. This helped tremendously in hunting down the cards I want and I'm finally on the way to an Astros 'Dream Team'. The historical ratings are still kind of wonky but this is 1.0 of Perfect Team.

Orcin · 12-05-2018, 02:27 PM

Nice roster!

One Post Wonder · 12-10-2018, 02:54 AM

Just saw this, and this thread came to mind.

As a backstory, McGregor was one of the best pitchers in the AL from about 1979-1983. In 1983 he won 18 games and the WS. I know all this is auto generated, but I'm curious to see how his numbers could have looked that bad. 40 is what you give to someone who shouldn't be in the major leagues.

I'm not mad about this stuff or anything. It just makes me wonder how these things are put together. I'm going to guess that control pitchers get heavily underrated when it comes to stuff.

Perhaps there should be minimum ratings for regular starters in MLB. In the same way that a SS can't have less than a 50 range IIRC - someone without that much simply could not play the position. So in that similar vein, if a pitcher is good enough to be an effective ML player than he therefore must have base ratings of at least X, Y, and Z.

Lukas Berger · 12-10-2018, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

Just saw this, and this thread came to mind.

As a backstory, McGregor was one of the best pitchers in the AL from about 1979-1983. In 1983 he won 18 games and the WS. I know all this is auto generated, but I'm curious to see how his numbers could have looked that bad. 40 is what you give to someone who shouldn't be in the major leagues.

I'm not mad about this stuff or anything. It just makes me wonder how these things are put together. I'm going to guess that control pitchers get heavily underrated when it comes to stuff.

Perhaps there should be minimum ratings for regular starters in MLB. In the same way that a SS can't have less than a 50 range IIRC - someone without that much simply could not play the position. So in that similar vein, if a pitcher is good enough to be an effective ML player than he therefore must have base ratings of at least X, Y, and Z.

This is part of why it's important to look at context and not just at names. A lot of the time, the algorithm actually has a much clearer view of how good a player actually was/wasn't than we might.

McGregor K'd 3.0 (which was his worst year in his MLB career for not striking guys out) guys per 9 IP that year, along with allowing almost a HR per 9. Even for 1983, that K rate was abysmal. Since stuff pretty much = K's in-game, of course his stuff is not going to be good.

He really wasn't particularly good at anything but not walking people and eating innings, but Baltimore's defense made him look a lot better than he was. On top of that, 1983 was one of his lesser years in his earlier career going by overall rate stats, even if it looks better to us through the lens of Baltimore's team success that year.

Markus Heinsohn · 12-10-2018, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stl jason

random question (if Markus or the mods can say) on the future legends...

in version 20, when the "live" cards start to adjust based off the players actual performance... if one of these future legends turns out to be a complete bust, will we see their ratings plummet to a point where that gold level card shifts to silver... then bronze... then iron?

No, Future Legens will remain static.

joe.melin · 12-10-2018, 01:59 PM

I was stunned when I pulled 2000 Jeff Bagwell and his .310/.424/.615 47 homer year only got him and 80... and some pretty weak batter ratings.

Contact 65
Gap 60
HR 77
Eye 64!
K's 36

zrog2000 · 12-10-2018, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe.melin

I was stunned when I pulled 2000 Jeff Bagwell and his .310/.424/.615 47 homer year only got him and 80... and some pretty weak batter ratings.

Contact 65
Gap 60
HR 77
Eye 64!
K's 36

It does seem slightly low, but then again, offense was pretty absurd in 2000. 53 players hit .300 or better that season. 31 players had an OBP of .400 or more. 55 players had a slugging % of .500 or more.

In 2018 those totals were: 16, 6, 26.

Thalion · 12-10-2018, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe.melin

I was stunned when I pulled 2000 Jeff Bagwell and his .310/.424/.615 47 homer year only got him and 80... and some pretty weak batter ratings.

Contact 65
Gap 60
HR 77
Eye 64!
K's 36

They probably backed out the steroid factor.

chazzycat · 12-10-2018, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thalion

They probably backed out the steroid factor.

That's exactly what they did.

Not Bagwell specifically, but all the player ratings are adjusted based on the league-wide average statistics for the year of their card. 2000 was peak steroid era, so the ability to hit 50 homers was just not as impressive relative to league-average at that time.

It makes total sense IMO, and really, there is no other way to do it. If you want to have historical players & today's players in the same game, they need to be equalized somehow first.

Dogberry99 · 12-11-2018, 02:36 PM

Except that its not entirely consistent, as a player's error rating is designed so that it matches their fielding percentage from the year in question and not how they compared to the league average. Bagwell's ratings might feel low because many will look at the numbers he posted in the Majors and assume his ratings are built in such a way so that his simulated numbers will approximate his actual statistics, not how those statistics compared to his peers.

Bagpipes5 · 12-13-2018, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

Just saw this, and this thread came to mind.

As a backstory, McGregor was one of the best pitchers in the AL from about 1979-1983. In 1983 he won 18 games and the WS. I know all this is auto generated, but I'm curious to see how his numbers could have looked that bad. 40 is what you give to someone who shouldn't be in the major leagues.

I'm not mad about this stuff or anything. It just makes me wonder how these things are put together. I'm going to guess that control pitchers get heavily underrated when it comes to stuff.

Perhaps there should be minimum ratings for regular starters in MLB. In the same way that a SS can't have less than a 50 range IIRC - someone without that much simply could not play the position. So in that similar vein, if a pitcher is good enough to be an effective ML player than he therefore must have base ratings of at least X, Y, and Z.

I just ran into this one as well:

Seriously, 14 contact and 40 overall? Why even bother putting him in the game? I'm not sure as to why there is a 2014 Unsung Heroes card for him either. He didn't hit his well-known playoff home run against the Braves until 2005. In '04 he was just a first-round draft pick and big time prospect expected to replace Kent/Biggio at 2B one day. I figure that would at least garnish him an 80 overall rating based on 'Future Legends'. Kind of like how Kyle Tucker has a higher overall than George Springer.

Kushiel · 12-13-2018, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

I just ran into this one as well:

Seriously, 14 contact and 40 overall? Why even bother putting him in the game? I'm not sure as to why there is a 2014 Unsung Heroes card for him either. He didn't hit his well-known playoff home run against the Braves until 2005. In '04 he was just a first-round draft pick and big time prospect expected to replace Kent/Biggio at 2B one day. I figure that would at least garnish him an 80 overall rating based on 'Future Legends'. Kind of like how Kyle Tucker has a higher overall than George Springer.

No bat is why his OVR is 40.

chazzycat · 12-13-2018, 07:37 PM

That one could be a mistake. It doesn't really make sense to have an "unsung hero" card for a player who didn't do anything of note that year, and has worthless ratings. I'm guessing it was supposed to be 2005.

Xogo · 12-14-2018, 01:23 PM

What I find frustrating is that i dont think player ratings correlate to either their WAR or fWAR ratings on BaseballRef of Fanpgraphs. Even if OOTP doesnt want to just use those analytics, thats fine, but you would think the batters and pitchers with the best WAR or fWAR seasons ever would align. What do others thing about WAR and fWAR and how it relates to OOTP?

I recall many saying that when it came to pitchers that fWAR is the best metric and I found that to be true in my historical replays. But Im not seeing that for hitters or pitchers in PT.

12-04-2018, 05:23 PM	#26
Germaniac Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Frankenthal, Germany Posts: 3,071	I agree. I think modern players, some with only a couple of years in the majors, are rated much higher than historical players with really great, sometimes even HOF-, careers __________________ I'm going to have to meet my Maker some day. And if He asks me why I didn't let this boy play, and I say it's because he's black, that might not be a satisfactory answer. Happy Chandler, 1947

12-10-2018, 02:54 AM	#29
One Post Wonder All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 538	Just saw this, and this thread came to mind. As a backstory, McGregor was one of the best pitchers in the AL from about 1979-1983. In 1983 he won 18 games and the WS. I know all this is auto generated, but I'm curious to see how his numbers could have looked that bad. 40 is what you give to someone who shouldn't be in the major leagues. I'm not mad about this stuff or anything. It just makes me wonder how these things are put together. I'm going to guess that control pitchers get heavily underrated when it comes to stuff. Perhaps there should be minimum ratings for regular starters in MLB. In the same way that a SS can't have less than a 50 range IIRC - someone without that much simply could not play the position. So in that similar vein, if a pitcher is good enough to be an effective ML player than he therefore must have base ratings of at least X, Y, and Z. Last edited by One Post Wonder; 12-10-2018 at 03:05 AM.

12-04-2018, 02:53 PM	#23
Orcin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,850	That looks more like Wagner to me.

12-04-2018, 03:23 PM	#25
Bagpipes5 Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: TX Posts: 467	Lou Brock from a 1974 Historical: Lou Brock from my Perfect Team:

12-05-2018, 02:12 PM	#27
Bagpipes5 Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: TX Posts: 467	Just an update to this thread. I figured out that you can search for cards for a particular team by typing in the team's city or abbreviation in the name field of the market search. This helped tremendously in hunting down the cards I want and I'm finally on the way to an Astros 'Dream Team'. The historical ratings are still kind of wonky but this is 1.0 of Perfect Team.

12-05-2018, 02:27 PM	#28
Orcin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,850	Nice roster!

12-10-2018, 01:59 PM	#32
joe.melin Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 5	I was stunned when I pulled 2000 Jeff Bagwell and his .310/.424/.615 47 homer year only got him and 80... and some pretty weak batter ratings. Contact 65 Gap 60 HR 77 Eye 64! K's 36

12-11-2018, 02:36 PM	#36
Dogberry99 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2018 Location: Wichita Falls, TX Posts: 1,328	Except that its not entirely consistent, as a player's error rating is designed so that it matches their fielding percentage from the year in question and not how they compared to the league average. Bagwell's ratings might feel low because many will look at the numbers he posted in the Majors and assume his ratings are built in such a way so that his simulated numbers will approximate his actual statistics, not how those statistics compared to his peers.

12-13-2018, 07:37 PM	#39
chazzycat All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 1,685	That one could be a mistake. It doesn't really make sense to have an "unsung hero" card for a player who didn't do anything of note that year, and has worthless ratings. I'm guessing it was supposed to be 2005.

12-14-2018, 01:23 PM	#40
Xogo Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 216	What I find frustrating is that i dont think player ratings correlate to either their WAR or fWAR ratings on BaseballRef of Fanpgraphs. Even if OOTP doesnt want to just use those analytics, thats fine, but you would think the batters and pitchers with the best WAR or fWAR seasons ever would align. What do others thing about WAR and fWAR and how it relates to OOTP? I recall many saying that when it came to pitchers that fWAR is the best metric and I found that to be true in my historical replays. But Im not seeing that for hitters or pitchers in PT.