For those who suspect the game secretly protects the HR record...

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by kq76

Yeah, I just don't see it that way. Did people back then think him hitting 61 wasn't that big of a deal, that he could have just as easily have hit 64 or 65? I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case, or at least that's not how the movie portrayed it. It was a big deal, it surprised and excited a lot of people. It'd be like if someone had broken some long-standing Olympic games record that shocked a lot of people, but then there were a group of people who said, "whatever, that's not a big deal, they could have done even better, easily".

I mean, if you want it, you want it. Why should I argue against you not getting what you want. And, unlike Syd, I am for as many options as possible. If you want to play a fictional league where players routinely hit 80 or 90 HRs, I don't care. I just think it's a bizarre request coming from people who apparently want to replay history as realistically as possible. 61 was obviously out there, it didn't happen again until steroids came into the game. Reworking what you said, "Maris should not be just as likely to hit a few more than 61 as he is to hit a few less than 61". 61 was about as much as anyone could have reasonably hoped for back then.

But I'll accept it. If you want Maris to be just as likely to hit a few more than 61 in your sims as he is to hit a few less, then okay. I just don't think it's realistic is all. What was that saying we used to have here? "It's your game, play it your way."

I'm for as many options as possible in theory; I even said "sure, OK, go ahead and do this" for this one. My main issue is that as it is the game is practically inaccessible for new players who want to do anything besides the defaults because of the sheer number of options. I say this knowing full well that I fiddle with a ton of them and have probably gotten used to my own style of play with a lot of them flipped on or off or at least differently than the defaults. But that said, man the settings pages - pagES - are next to incomprehensible for anyone who isn't a seasoned vet right now.

Anyway though I don't really have a dog in this fight for the option beyond the above. One more checkbox out of 57395791315 wouldn't super heavily increase the complexity.

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Now Syd, why are you getting personal?.

You snobbishly tell me to read a book on statistics while ignoring that this thread started out with a post trying to use irrelevant data to prove a point. Where's your call out of that?

You surely remember the original discussion and I don't know why you're trying to defend OOTP devs on something they don't care about. They've made their decision.

Bigger question is why are supposedly grown people arguing whether a baseball simulation will allow a player to break any records? What would it gain from that? And why do people even care if a simulation game allows or don't allow records of IRL players to be broken. What's next? K record? Batting Average? Doubles record? Of all things to complain about...jeez...
BB

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

...

Yeah, I hear you on that. But I do think there are some ways they could improve the settings pages, like better organization or the file I proposed where you could either use the settings in game or just do a Ctrl+F on a file outside of it and edit it instead.

[Marinersfan51]

Out of curiosity, why would someone do a single-season replay with all the inputs being calibrated exactly to what happened in that real season (with the real transactions and lineups and whatnot)? I've never seen the appeal myself, since it doesn't provide anything new that wasn't already covered by the real life season. Since all the variance should be perfectly symmetrical around the actual results, what are you getting out of it besides seeing the real season be replicated very similarly, but not quite the same?

I understand it more with historical replays that aren't completely calibrated to the real life results. To use a more recent example, the 2021 Giants were tremendous outliers with a whole roster of vets having career years simultaneously and a team that was .500 the years before and after won 107 games. The perfectly calibrated single-season replay of 2021 would have the Giants as a true talent 107 win team that would be equally likely to win 112 as 102.

We kind of know that the 2021 Giants weren't really that. Brandon Crawford probably didn't fundamentally change as a player for 6 months after a decade in the bigs and then immediately revert back to his previous form. It is far more likely that Crawford just had a season long hot streak and if you were to replay his last 5 seasons he would be just as likely to have that great season in 2019 as 2021.

I suppose we really have no way of knowing a player's true talent level at any given time, but we know that players have hot and cold streaks, so why would we build the results of the hot and cold streaks into their true talent estimate? It seems like overfitting.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by kq76

Yeah, I hear you on that. But I do think there are some ways they could improve the settings pages, like better organization or the file I proposed where you could either use the settings in game or just do a Ctrl+F on a file outside of it and edit it instead.

Yeah I’d be all for just offloading an awful lot of the settings into a JSON file outside of the game. You’d then be able to post them and copy them pretty easily and settings are easily expansive enough now that a lot of people could use a good setup for historical GM play, or a random rookie debut with the Negro Leagues turned on. I also appreciate that JSON is significantly less accessible to the layperson than a UI but we’re at a point where, like I said, it’s not terribly accessible anyway.

Now this, way more than “I demand Roger Maris hits 70 HRs in my league”, is a real feature add to me…

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

Out of curiosity, why would someone do a single-season replay with all the inputs being calibrated exactly to what happened in that real season (with the real transactions and lineups and whatnot)?.

For me? Nostalgia. I was 9 yrs old when the leagues first went to divisions and the Orioles and my Twins had a playoff. Seeing all of the names of the players of my youth back on the field (and with Silvam's tremendous mods) in the proper stadiums and uniforms is an incredible experience. Part of the beauty, to me, is it takes almost no input from me, I'm just an observer. I'm 9, 10, 11,... years old again and seeing the games instead of listening on the radio.

With OOTP already allowing for "what if" historical games I don't think it was a big stretch for them to "compete" with the Strat O Matics of the world by adding the code necessary to have single season replays. Might not be quite as accurate as games dedicated to replays, but I think it's close enough. Especially when one figures in all of the seasons are included with OOTP compared to the cost of buying seasons with the "other guys".

When I want to actually run a club I play my "regular" OOTP league that was started in v4 and imported to each new version since. Best of both worlds in one package.

[HRBaker]

Can you even imagine the problems this would create?


First of all, no effort from the OOTP team (or anyone else) could insure that a realistic historical statistical season could happen. Statistics and Odds simply don't work that way unless the data input is in numbers that significantly exceed 162 games.


Second, the ONLY way this could happen is to input the players statistics and basically subtract each game result from his totals until he reached Zero. Which, by the way would then result in players going 0-for-12 or 12-for-12 the last 3 or so games to insure accuracy.


I can't even imagine the customer complaints and the frustration on the OOTP team for giving the customer exactly what he wanted and still being criticized for it because DeMaggio went 12 games without a hit (since he used up all his hits already). And speaking of Dimaggio, where do you place his 32 game hitting streak? On the same days he hit them in real life?


As someone above already asked, why in the world would someone want to play out a season that resulted in exactly the same results that is already recorded in MLB history?


OOTP isn't a replay of reality - it's a replay of what "could have been". And THAT is what makes it interesting and fun.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Sweed

For me? Nostalgia. I was 9 yrs old when the leagues first went to divisions and the Orioles and my Twins had a playoff. Seeing all of the names of the players of my youth back on the field (and with Silvam's tremendous mods) in the proper stadiums and uniforms is an incredible experience. Part of the beauty, to me, is it takes almost no input from me, I'm just an observer. I'm 9, 10, 11,... years old again and seeing the games instead of listening on the radio.

That is an excellent reason and something I had not considered. I typically browse boxscores when I am nostalgic, but I can see the appeal of seeing a childhood team exactly as it was.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

OOTP isn't Strat O Matic. It's never a "single season replay", it's always in context with the seasons and era around it. Again, if you want a game that just redoes stats, SOM is great. Diamond Mind Baseball is great. You also have to pay a lot more for single seasons because they spend a lot more time curating them than OOTP does.

Its a single season replay if you select single season replay.

And what do you mean in the context of the seasons around it?

[thehef]

I think the points being missed by some - but not all - of the many here who are trying to be helpful (and certainly the very few who are being condescending and deliberately midrepresentative), is that the historical simmers who don't like - for lack of better phrasing - "how '61 Maris plays out in OOTP" ...

1) Are not looking for stats to be identical to real life. We're cool with variation.

2) Don't want single-season HR Kings treated differently - for our sims that are created with single-season replay settings - than other single-season Kings of other stats. And they are, as Lukas stated: "... for historical outlier seasons like Maris' 61 HR season, the game is not rating Maris as if his 'true' talent for that season is to hit 61 HR's." That approach is fine for career play, but not IMO for single-season replay mode. This same sort of artificial-but-loose-cap is not - to my knowledge - placed on other statistical accomplishments, like the guys who had tear-it-up seasons with batting average.

IOW, we want '61 Maris treated the same as '80 George Brett, in that - with ideal single-season settings - there's a good chance he'll hit in the neighborhood of .390, maybe a little lower, maybe a little higher, but in the 'hood; rather than consistently coming up short.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by thehef

midrepresentative), is that the historical simmers who don't like - for lack of better phrasing - "how '61 Maris plays out in OOTP" ...

That's very good phrasing to describe the situation.

With three year recalc which I use players often have their good luck on top of the ratings a year or two different from their real life experience of good luck on top of talent.

Its a major inconsistency to rate on actual performance and let randomness have its way most of the time but not all the time. If Maris might hit 70 HRs and Bonds might hit 80 and the devs think that's a problem then the right solution is one that addresses all instances of OOTP producing implausible performances, not just one that jumped out and irritated them.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by thehef

I think the points being missed by some - but not all - of the many here who are trying to be helpful (and certainly the very few who are being condescending and deliberately midrepresentative), is that the historical simmers who don't like - for lack of better phrasing - "how '61 Maris plays out in OOTP" ...

Its not just Maris. In my Pirates Moneyball save 1951 - 2008 the single season HR leaders are Hank Aaron, Jose Canseco, and Jim Thome all with 54. Bonds best year is 53.

The highest single season BA is .386 by... are you ready... Lonnie Smith! There are six other seasons over .380.

Freddie Patek nicknamed The Flea in 1972 has a season WAR of 10.2. Patek leading MLB in WAR? LOL. Amazing for a guy who in the save produced seven season of negative WAR.

How can it be justified reducing HR production while allowing the Smith and Patek performances?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Can you even imagine the problems this would create?


First of all, no effort from the OOTP team (or anyone else) could insure that a realistic historical statistical season could happen. Statistics and Odds simply don't work that way unless the data input is in numbers that significantly exceed 162 games.


Second, the ONLY way this could happen is to input the players statistics and basically subtract each game result from his totals until he reached Zero. Which, by the way would then result in players going 0-for-12 or 12-for-12 the last 3 or so games to insure accuracy.


I can't even imagine the customer complaints and the frustration on the OOTP team for giving the customer exactly what he wanted and still being criticized for it because DeMaggio went 12 games without a hit (since he used up all his hits already). And speaking of Dimaggio, where do you place his 32 game hitting streak? On the same days he hit them in real life?


As someone above already asked, why in the world would someone want to play out a season that resulted in exactly the same results that is already recorded in MLB history?


OOTP isn't a replay of reality - it's a replay of what "could have been". And THAT is what makes it interesting and fun.

Nobody is asking OOTP to always, or even usually, produce performances that match real life. Not even playing historical lineups. But whatever "could have been" it produces needs to be plausible. Just because its possible in OOTP due to chance doesn't mean it's plausible as a simulation of real life possibilities.

The idea of a player going 0 for the last three games of the season so he can hit exactly what he did RL is an extreme example intended to prove a point and is not reality because there's no desire a player hit exactly what he did real life. A last three games "the player has to go 0 for 14" (and everyone knows it) or "the player has to hit 7 HRs" need never happen with a properly designed system.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

Bigger question is why are supposedly grown people arguing whether a baseball simulation will allow a player to break any records? What would it gain from that? And why do people even care if a simulation game allows or don't allow records of IRL players to be broken. What's next? K record? Batting Average? Doubles record? Of all things to complain about...jeez...
BB

Ask the guy who started the thread. It was his intention, as evidenced by the confrontational first post using irrelevant data to support his point to start an argument.

[r0nster]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

So what? Not even his real life best. Stuart hit 66 dingers in 1956. True, at Lincoln. He was enormously proud of that and had vanity plates with 66 on them. I saw that pictured in SPORT magazine back in the day.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...tuardi01.shtml

proof of what he did and had 2 good years in Boston

[MathBandit]

My intuition is that single-season HR totals are *much* more noisy than stuff like BA, which is why it would make sense that players who were elite in other categories in a given season are probably more 'sticky' than players who had outlier HR seasons.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

My intuition is that single-season HR totals are *much* more noisy than stuff like BA, which is why it would make sense that players who were elite in other categories in a given season are probably more 'sticky' than players who had outlier HR seasons.

Also could be there are still some people around like those at the time who were angry at Maris for breaking Babe's record.

[quillenl]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

Out of curiosity, why would someone do a single-season replay with all the inputs being calibrated exactly to what happened in that real season (with the real transactions and lineups and whatnot)? I've never seen the appeal myself, since it doesn't provide anything new that wasn't already covered by the real life season. Since all the variance should be perfectly symmetrical around the actual results, what are you getting out of it besides seeing the real season be replicated very similarly, but not quite the same?

I'll run it a couple times each version for testing from 1901 to whatever the current year is to get a quick clue as to whether or not anything has changed in the engine. For example, this year you could see the impact of BABIP additions on a couple folks such as Bob Feller.

Below is a top 20 from the last test sim I ran. There are a lot of minor changes that couple potentially skew these results significantly in the engine / database and running the historical norm let's me see if something may have changed such as park factors, ratings, or the way OOTP calculates.

[Reed]

Originally Posted by quillenl

I'll run it a couple times each version for testing from 1901 to whatever the current year is to get a quick clue as to whether or not anything has changed in the engine. For example, this year you could see the impact of BABIP additions on a couple folks such as Bob Feller.

Below is a top 20 from the last test sim I ran. There are a lot of minor changes that couple potentially skew these results significantly in the engine / database and running the historical norm let's me see if something may have changed such as park factors, ratings, or the way OOTP calculates.

Did you use 1 year or 3 year double weighted recalc.. Real or Neutralized stats. Park factors on/off? weaken/adjust at default? Chemistry, personality off. Injuries off? How many players/seasons of .400 BA? Highest BA for year by a player? Thanks in advance.

[quillenl]

If you just want 100% as close to the real stats you have to turn off everything that will introduce additional randomness, so...

Single Season Recalc, Chemistry and Morale System Off, Actual Historical lineups used, Park factors on, weaken at default and Real Stats. Attached is the top 20 for Batting Average. Batting Average is an interesting one to ask for because I am currently trying to figure out what is wrong with George Brett due to the results I had seen for AVG and am currently working through what may be wrong with him and a handful of others (could just be the historical lineups).

Top 20 records for AVG attached below.