I just can't win in the playoffs - Page 3

4th Virginia · 07-31-2007, 01:56 PM

My 1963-1966 Doggers have won 112, 117, 121, and 115 games respectively in each year. At no time did any of those teams ever lose more than 2 games in a row during any of those seasons. Until the World Series. When they were bounced in 4, 4, 5, and 4 games respectively to teams winning 95 games. I can see losing 1 of those series. 2, even. Perhaps 3 if there were some injuries or a particularly good opponent. But all 4 years? and 3 of them sweeps? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Russ · 07-31-2007, 01:59 PM

Could it be a lack of a dominant top 2 in the rotation and consistently going against teams that have two shutdown guys?

1998 Yankees · 07-31-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4th Virginia

My 1963-1966 Doggers have won 112, 117, 121, and 115 games respectively in each year. At no time did any of those teams ever lose more than 2 games in a row during any of those seasons. Until the World Series. When they were bounced in 4, 4, 5, and 4 games respectively to teams winning 95 games. I can see losing 1 of those series. 2, even. Perhaps 3 if there were some injuries or a particularly good opponent. But all 4 years? and 3 of them sweeps? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

The testimonials just keep coming . . .

GamerOfTheWorld · 07-31-2007, 02:15 PM

Just out of curiosity, are you guys simming or playing games out?

It's weird. I sincerely doubt that there is some hidden factor that makes it harder for human teams to win in the playoffs (or at least I hope there isn't), but it's hard to ignore all these anecdotes. Is there anyone with a dominant team that is consistently winning in the playoffs?

zekester91 · 07-31-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GamerOfTheWorld

Just out of curiosity, are you guys simming or playing games out?

It's weird. I sincerely doubt that there is some hidden factor that makes it harder for human teams to win in the playoffs (or at least I hope there isn't), but it's hard to ignore all these anecdotes. Is there anyone with a dominant team that is consistently winning in the playoffs?

I've had dominat teams that consistently win in the playoffs and I've had one or two dominat teams that just couldn't win a play off game to save thier lives. It seems to me that there is something in the game that has players hot or cold at certian times of the year, almost by months.

Elendil · 07-31-2007, 02:56 PM

Again, I'm 99.9% sure there's nothing in the game at all that makes human teams do worse in the playoffs, or that even affects certain players differently in the playoffs than in the regular season, except possibly the leadership attribute. It's all in your heads.

1998 Yankees · 07-31-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elendil

It's all in your heads.

LOL!

Let me call for that appointment now . . .

RchW · 07-31-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GamerOfTheWorld

Just out of curiosity, are you guys simming or playing games out?

It's weird. I sincerely doubt that there is some hidden factor that makes it harder for human teams to win in the playoffs (or at least I hope there isn't), but it's hard to ignore all these anecdotes. Is there anyone with a dominant team that is consistently winning in the playoffs?

If you check earlier in this thread, I speculated that the morale system was a suspect. When I turn morale off I can win 3-5 WS in a row. In fact it is so easy it's boring. With it on I won a couple (none consecutive) over 10 seasons, but never like a dynasty.

I suggest that when posting multi-year results that people indicate morale on or off as I strongly feel that it has a big effect on the results.

On the question of playing style, I sim the regular season rapidly and play out all playoff games.

Mntwins · 07-31-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

If you check earlier in this thread, I speculated that the morale system was a suspect. When I turn morale off I can win 3-5 WS in a row. In fact it is so easy it's boring. With it on I won a couple (none consecutive) over 10 seasons, but never like a dynasty.

I suggest that when posting multi-year results that people indicate morale on or off as I strongly feel that it has a big effect on the results.

On the question of playing style, I sim the regular season rapidly and play out all playoff games.

I thought about turning morale off but I'm leaving it on cause I like getting frustrated.

I'm in august now with a 5 game lead. Should be interesting to see what happens in the playoffs.

1998 Yankees · 07-31-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

Just an observation I made in this version. For 10 of 11 seasons I had the dominant team and only won twice, with morale on. I turned morale off, just for the playoffs and won 3 straight. It was too easy so I decided to keep morale on during the playoffs again and...

All right, I glossed over this previously but now I will ask you why you think the morale system affects playoff results for the human manager. Other than observation of what could be a coincidence, how do you think these aspects are related? Because if they are indeed related, then that could be an indication of a design problem IMHO.

RchW · 07-31-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

All right, I glossed over this previously but now I will ask you why you think the morale system affects playoff results for the human manager. Other than observation of what could be a coincidence, how do you think these aspects are related? Because if they are indeed related, then that could be an indication of a design problem IMHO.

Well as they say on CSI, I'm following the evidence. With morale off and a dominant team I won three WS in a row while going 12-3 to 12-6. I play 7 game series throughout. Nothing was close.I was blowing out teams 10-2 etc..

In the previous 8 seasons with morale on and a dominant team I won 2 WS but never reached it except for the wins. In the succeeding 3 seasons with morale on, no WS wins but I did make it to and lose the WS last season (a first in 22 simmed seasons).

You could be right, this may just be co-incidence or a small sample size. I also don't really want the game to be easier to win. That is why I turned morale back on.

1998 Yankees · 08-01-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

Well as they say on CSI, I'm following the evidence. With morale off and a dominant team I won three WS in a row while going 12-3 to 12-6. I play 7 game series throughout. Nothing was close.I was blowing out teams 10-2 etc..

In the previous 8 seasons with morale on and a dominant team I won 2 WS but never reached it except for the wins. In the succeeding 3 seasons with morale on, no WS wins but I did make it to and lose the WS last season (a first in 22 simmed seasons).

You could be right, this may just be co-incidence or a small sample size. I also don't really want the game to be easier to win. That is why I turned morale back on.

OK, thanks. Maybe I will try turning it off when I get back to the playoffs with a strong team. Besides, there should not be any morale problems on a team that's in the playoffs; eyes on the prize, etc.

Burgandy · 08-01-2007, 12:51 PM

I cannot add any of my own testimony. I think my playoff runs in my dominant league have been almost exactly on par with my regular season success. I'll win about 110-120 games, and throughout the season, I'll run through stretches where I win 19 of 20 games, then drop 3 of the next 4. Then, every so often, it happens in the playoffs, where I'm playing a team with good pitching and my offense struggles. Turning morale off should have nothing to do with it. But keeping players' overall happiness seems important, even if they're angry about one thing or another.

Maybe some of your teams lack leadership, or intelligence, or some other personality trait that makes them stink it up in the playoffs?

How many players do you have with 80% or higher leadership? I usually have 2 SP, a few bullpen guys, and at least 3 batters with almost maxed leadership ratings. All my players are happy, because most of them also have high desire ratings, so that helps to offset those that are unhappy about their role on the team. I saw someone say they avoid players with high desire to win ratings. I think this may be bad advice for a team with intentions of winning. People that want to play for a winner are going to do better on a winner, and it helps their overall morale.

It's almost a requirement for my players to be intelligent with strong work ethic, too. I think all these personality traits go a long way to making your team perform consistently in the playoffs. Or perhaps it's just luck.

Now, what do I have to do to make them play well the last month of the regular season? I've stopped calling rookies up in hopes of not watching my team completely unravel before the postseason begins. It doesn't help. I usually struggle to break .500 for the month of September, but then for the playoffs, I'm usually back in business.

AnonymousGrump · 08-03-2007, 04:53 PM

I don't think it is morale- or at least not solely morale because my example is from an online league* that started in realtime 2003, so those records include games played under OOTP5, OOTP6, OOTP6.5, and only using OOTP2007 since the 2013 season.

I remember reading somewhere on these forums a long time back a discussion about Markus was somehow "crippling" dominant teams to cut back on the number of dynasties. (Or some such reasoning- it was a long time ago and I may be mis-remembering). I also don't remember whether this was something just being theorized or whether this was actually the case. Perhaps there's something to this?

* The Commish sims one game week's worth of games at a time.

AnonymousGrump · 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgandy

Now, what do I have to do to make them play well the last month of the regular season? I've stopped calling rookies up in hopes of not watching my team completely unravel before the postseason begins. It doesn't help. I usually struggle to break .500 for the month of September, but then for the playoffs, I'm usually back in business.

I have had that happen to me season after season after season: I'll have winning records every month all season, but then September rolls around and the team usually ends up with its only losing monthly record of the season.

Just last season it looked like I was going to finally go into the playoffs on a roll, but the final sim ended with me going 2-5 and entering the playoffs with 3 or 4 game losing streak.

After the first couple seasons of this, I thought maybe the players were tired by that point, so afterwards I started giving the regulars more rest and changed from a 4-man to a 5-man rotation (with an occasional 6th man). Nothing changed.

evanbarth · 08-03-2007, 11:04 PM

Probably dumb, but can someone point me to where you turn morale on and off?

Thanks!

Curtis · 08-03-2007, 11:22 PM

Game Setup > Player & Picture Options > lefthand column. It's the last of the five checkboxes.

Mntwins · 08-04-2007, 08:16 PM

Well I decided to keep morale on and guess what?? I lost in the playoffs! What a shock!

12 trips to the playoffs and I've won one 7 game series.

endgame · 08-04-2007, 09:18 PM

I'm not convinced this is anything but small sample sizes and exaggerated perceptions as a result. Yes, the testimonials keep coming. But what about the many - I'm speculating with some certainty - game owners who do not experience this phenomenon? They'd be less likely to post and, if so, not in any great number. As a rule - my own

- the silent are often the majority except in situations of obvious flaw or controversies of unusual import and interest to the larger community.

That being said, I'm currently in the playoffs, having won the first round and now beginning the league championship or, in my world, the Deference Series. I may indeed end up experiencing what has been portrayed here as an AI lift, or a morale influence. If it's the latter, I hope it does kick in. Most of my team is feeling Good to Great. All season, I've let my excellent manager take charge of almost all game decisions. In the first round playoffs, I did find I needed to 'pick up that phone' and override his decision to start our #5 pitcher in the fifth game of the best of five. Too much riding on it, and I went to the #2 guy on instinct. He threw 8 innings, 8 strikeouts, performing marginally above what I'd seen him do regularly throughout the season.

Part of me wants to believe in real 'characters' in play during the post-season, prone to all kinds of human proclivities to shine or bust during the pressure. The argument isn't limited to only human-controlled influences. If the AI players/team are able to find that virtual stuff that drives them over the top to victory, then maybe I should be saying, "Man, they brought it in the last series!" or "This team (mine) does not believe in clutch -- and they prove it every year by losing!" rather than, "Ya think there's a bump in the playoff settings?"

RchW · 08-05-2007, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgame

I'm not convinced this is anything but small sample sizes and exaggerated perceptions as a result. Yes, the testimonials keep coming. But what about the many - I'm speculating with some certainty - game owners who do not experience this phenomenon? They'd be less likely to post and, if so, not in any great number. As a rule - my own

- the silent are often the majority except in situations of obvious flaw or controversies of unusual import and interest to the larger community.

You may well be right. As one of the main plaintiffs in the case of "Disgruntled team owners (not game owners

) vs OOTP Morale System", I don't rule out that it is all in my mind.

However I suggest that people would post if they consistently won championships with an inferior team. It seems to me that such results would cause threads complaining that the game was too easy and that 86-76 teams should not win 3 WS in a row. Although there have been posts claiming that the game is too easy, they generally come from people who also have dominant teams.

What would be an appropriate sample size? I have approx. 200 seasons played in various solo leagues (most of them defunct now) and I've yet to see consecutive WS won by a team in my control without turning off morale. I only count seasons where my team is clearly dominant and would be seeded 1 or 1A going into the playoffs.

As it stands now I think the morale system may exert just a bit too much influence on playoff results. However I'd rather fight that, than win 5 consecutive WS with no opposition.

07-31-2007, 01:59 PM	#42
Russ All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Essex HON! Posts: 1,923 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Could it be a lack of a dominant top 2 in the rotation and consistently going against teams that have two shutdown guys? __________________ If you don't love Russ, you don't love America. This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

07-31-2007, 02:56 PM	#46
Elendil Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the dynasty forum Posts: 2,318	Again, I'm 99.9% sure there's nothing in the game at all that makes human teams do worse in the playoffs, or that even affects certain players differently in the playoffs than in the regular season, except possibly the leadership attribute. It's all in your heads. __________________ Heaven is kicking back with a double Talisker and a churchwarden stuffed with latakia.

08-04-2007, 09:18 PM	#59
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,842	I'm not convinced this is anything but small sample sizes and exaggerated perceptions as a result. Yes, the testimonials keep coming. But what about the many - I'm speculating with some certainty - game owners who do not experience this phenomenon? They'd be less likely to post and, if so, not in any great number. As a rule - my own - the silent are often the majority except in situations of obvious flaw or controversies of unusual import and interest to the larger community. That being said, I'm currently in the playoffs, having won the first round and now beginning the league championship or, in my world, the Deference Series. I may indeed end up experiencing what has been portrayed here as an AI lift, or a morale influence. If it's the latter, I hope it does kick in. Most of my team is feeling Good to Great. All season, I've let my excellent manager take charge of almost all game decisions. In the first round playoffs, I did find I needed to 'pick up that phone' and override his decision to start our #5 pitcher in the fifth game of the best of five. Too much riding on it, and I went to the #2 guy on instinct. He threw 8 innings, 8 strikeouts, performing marginally above what I'd seen him do regularly throughout the season. Part of me wants to believe in real 'characters' in play during the post-season, prone to all kinds of human proclivities to shine or bust during the pressure. The argument isn't limited to only human-controlled influences. If the AI players/team are able to find that virtual stuff that drives them over the top to victory, then maybe I should be saying, "Man, they brought it in the last series!" or "This team (mine) does not believe in clutch -- and they prove it every year by losing!" rather than, "Ya think there's a bump in the playoff settings?" __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________ Last edited by endgame; 08-04-2007 at 09:19 PM.

07-31-2007, 01:56 PM	#41
4th Virginia Bat Boy Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6	My 1963-1966 Doggers have won 112, 117, 121, and 115 games respectively in each year. At no time did any of those teams ever lose more than 2 games in a row during any of those seasons. Until the World Series. When they were bounced in 4, 4, 5, and 4 games respectively to teams winning 95 games. I can see losing 1 of those series. 2, even. Perhaps 3 if there were some injuries or a particularly good opponent. But all 4 years? and 3 of them sweeps? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

07-31-2007, 02:15 PM	#44
GamerOfTheWorld Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 47	Just out of curiosity, are you guys simming or playing games out? It's weird. I sincerely doubt that there is some hidden factor that makes it harder for human teams to win in the playoffs (or at least I hope there isn't), but it's hard to ignore all these anecdotes. Is there anyone with a dominant team that is consistently winning in the playoffs?

08-01-2007, 12:51 PM	#53
Burgandy Minors (Single A) Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 85	I cannot add any of my own testimony. I think my playoff runs in my dominant league have been almost exactly on par with my regular season success. I'll win about 110-120 games, and throughout the season, I'll run through stretches where I win 19 of 20 games, then drop 3 of the next 4. Then, every so often, it happens in the playoffs, where I'm playing a team with good pitching and my offense struggles. Turning morale off should have nothing to do with it. But keeping players' overall happiness seems important, even if they're angry about one thing or another. Maybe some of your teams lack leadership, or intelligence, or some other personality trait that makes them stink it up in the playoffs? How many players do you have with 80% or higher leadership? I usually have 2 SP, a few bullpen guys, and at least 3 batters with almost maxed leadership ratings. All my players are happy, because most of them also have high desire ratings, so that helps to offset those that are unhappy about their role on the team. I saw someone say they avoid players with high desire to win ratings. I think this may be bad advice for a team with intentions of winning. People that want to play for a winner are going to do better on a winner, and it helps their overall morale. It's almost a requirement for my players to be intelligent with strong work ethic, too. I think all these personality traits go a long way to making your team perform consistently in the playoffs. Or perhaps it's just luck. Now, what do I have to do to make them play well the last month of the regular season? I've stopped calling rookies up in hopes of not watching my team completely unravel before the postseason begins. It doesn't help. I usually struggle to break .500 for the month of September, but then for the playoffs, I'm usually back in business.

08-03-2007, 04:53 PM	#54
AnonymousGrump Bat Boy Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 17	I don't think it is morale- or at least not solely morale because my example is from an online league* that started in realtime 2003, so those records include games played under OOTP5, OOTP6, OOTP6.5, and only using OOTP2007 since the 2013 season. I remember reading somewhere on these forums a long time back a discussion about Markus was somehow "crippling" dominant teams to cut back on the number of dynasties. (Or some such reasoning- it was a long time ago and I may be mis-remembering). I also don't remember whether this was something just being theorized or whether this was actually the case. Perhaps there's something to this? * The Commish sims one game week's worth of games at a time.

08-03-2007, 11:04 PM	#56
evanbarth Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 328	Probably dumb, but can someone point me to where you turn morale on and off? Thanks!

08-03-2007, 11:22 PM	#57
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	Game Setup > Player & Picture Options > lefthand column. It's the last of the five checkboxes.

08-04-2007, 08:16 PM	#58
Mntwins Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Minot ND Posts: 379	Well I decided to keep morale on and guess what?? I lost in the playoffs! What a shock! 12 trips to the playoffs and I've won one 7 game series.