Ripken streak impossible?

[willfla29]

It took a few pages, but I kinda see OP's point. It would be cool if, for example, a player has a 55-game hitting streak that the simulation not pull that player after going 0-1 in the first inning. Or if a guy has 73 HRs on the year that he not be platooned on the last game of the season. In a career, a guy sitting at 298 Ws might get an opportunity on a team that he otherwise might not in real life.

Obviously, not a big deal and I get everyone else's points.

[majesty95]

Some of these reasons to suggest this is not or should not be replicated literally make me shake my head. From what I've read I think the biggest issue I;m seeing is the perspective one is choosing to look through.

1. Some people play the game and want an alternative reality that does not follow real life. That's cool but that does not make those who want real life to be replicated to be diminished. We should ave both options because they appeal to a wider set of users. Yes, if I want an exact replication, I can use recal and historic lineups and transactions. But it shouldn't be that or complete fantasy. I dont buy that the game is completely fictitious once you hit advance for one day. That would make league totals, historic transactions, lineups, financials, etc all moot. There has been a HUGE investment into allowing the game to re-create the past while giving the user an option to deviate from reality at their choosing. This particular area seems to be an oversight.

B. Eras. The argument was made that leaving a pitcher in to get a no-hitter is not realistic. Yet, it is. At least up until the past few years. Up until the 2010's and all of the advanced metrics became the norm, it was absolutely, 100% a no-brianer that you leave a SP in to try and finish a no-hitter (with rare exceptions). I think this is one of the areas the game does not handle well. Despite all of the resources put into replicating the rules of different eras, the game is essentially the played the same through all eras. You can play in 1900 and teams, it seems, use WAR and advanced scouting, etc to make decisions. Stuff that was not even conceived back then. I don't disagree that the Ripken streak will never be seen again because it just doesn't make sense based on the metrics of today. However, there was a time when those metrics didn't exist and players managed on "gut" and players played through injuries because it was the "right" thing to do.

Now, the hard part. How do you add that to the game? I'm not sure. I get the argument that you dont want a bunch of guys reaching that streak. But who is to say one of the guys with 1,000+ doesnt actually break the streak if we re-wound and played history over? Maybe they stay healthy and Ripken doesn't? We don't know. But what we do know is that the game will 100% never re-create that. Even the 1,000 game streak. It just won't do it. It will sit guys and give them rest. I'd like to see that change.

Is recognizing the streak enough? Maybe. Maybe you set a threshold of 1,000 games and if that's in tact the AI preserves it unless an injury that must make them sit occurs. Heck, maybe at 500 games it preserves it unless its a certain injury threshold. It seems reasonable that it can be done. The trick, maybe, is how does the game know someone coming in has that kind of streak in tact? Does the data signify that? Could it look at the games played and if they had 162 in every season just assume? Probably not ideal with rain outs and tie breaker games. Either way, its seems conceivable.

Maybe the game adds ratings like toughness or a play through inquiry rating? Maybe those guys fatigue a little less and dont need to sit and that helps extend it? As long as only players who played in 162 games (or whatever the total was for that year) get a very high number then it shouldn't get too out of control.

Lastly, I think we need a VAST overhaul of an era system. World of Mixed Martial Arts is interesting because it has rules sets and strategies that change during different eras. You can also set these yourself. It would be nice if stats were limited by era. I know that probably difficult with formatting on screen but would replicate the past better and make historicals much more fun. Maybe you just gray them out or dont show them like they do with Overall if you play potential only? It would be nice if teams didnt always use WAR and FIP and all of these advanced analytics. It would be cool if AVG and HRs were what mattered during the eras in which they really mattered. I get that the user can exploit that, especially if the game is showing it, but that's their choice. If a user's goal is use data he has in 2019 to exploit teams in 1919, let him. If they want to bring those stats back into that era and compete against A that uses them, cool, let them do that too.

I worry OOTP is going the way of most other sports games. I liken historicals to franchise modes in console games. Fictional games in OOTP are, to me, like play now or a straight season mode. Perfect team is obviously like Ultimate Team or Diamond Dynasty. I feel like historicals were a big part of this game for a LONG time and are now kind of an after thought and get more and more fictional every year. That's very unfortunate

[Drstrangelove]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/more-pit...om-no-hitters/

Between 1991-2010, some 33 times a starter was pulled while throwing a no-hitter. And it certainly happened many times before then. And though it does happen a little more frequently today, (it was still lower every year from 1992-2018 then the peak of 6 times in 1991), it's certainly true that pitchers have been pulled for decades.

The reason modern pitchers are pulled slightly more often in recent years seems due to pitch counts, or at least, IRL, that's a common rationale MLB managers offer. Why is it then unrealistic when the game does it?

[majesty95]

You're including modern day in there which it is still 42 no hitters vs 33 non. But, as the article's primary example, Bob Milacki was pulled after getting hit with a batted ball. How many more of those examples were there?

My reference was more 80's and 90's though where there were 43 CG no hitters. Zero times was a pitchers pulled after 8 innings and only twice after 7. There were 14 instances of 6+ innings of no hit ball and then being pulled. Was that because of injury or protecting a lead? Who knows. But I think its safe to say on some level a manager manages differently when a no hitter is on the line. If a one game accomplishment that occurs far more frequently than a consecutive games played streak can affect a manager's in game decisions, so should such a streak.

[Brad K]

I don't know how many times I've played OOTP but its a lot. Usually start early/mid 60s and play a bit into the 80s. Babe Ruth's career home run record has been broken ONE TIME. By Eddie Matthews. Should I complain?

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I don't know how many times I've played OOTP but its a lot. Usually start early/mid 60s and play a bit into the 80s. Babe Ruth's career home run record has been broken ONE TIME. By Eddie Matthews. Should I complain?

Seems like a troll post and completely irrelevant.

[Drstrangelove]

Originally Posted by majesty95

You can play in 1900 and teams, it seems, use WAR and advanced scouting, etc to make decisions. Stuff that was not even conceived back then.

Irl, the players who were thought to be the greatest in their time (e.g., Wagner, Cobb, Mathewson, Young), had the most WAR. Ironically, Ruth, Gehrig, Alexander, Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial were identified as the greatest at their positions long before WAR was adopted and yet, they also have the most WAR.

Players in all eras have understood how games are won. Hitting, pitching, base running and defense. They understood the impact of various parks and strategies on the game outcomes. They understood that some players were more valuable than others. They understood that certain defensive positions were more important than others. They understood how to use outs to advance and score runners. That's WAR. WAR isn't a new conception of baseball: it's a mathematical way of looking at baseball the way people have always looked at it.

Originally Posted by majesty95

But what we do know is that the game will 100% never re-create that. Even the 1,000 game streak. It just won't do it. It will sit guys and give them rest. I'd like to see that change.

So, what exactly is the change?

What it sounds like is this: the AI should intentionally use players in the game in a way that will increase the chance of a personal achievement ---even if--- it reduces the chance of the AI winning and increasing the chances of injuries.

So, a few consecutive game streaks will be achieved along with (many) extra injuries and reduced performance. Pitchers will be kept in to throw no-hitters (while tired) leading to more blown out arms, early career exits, lost games, but a handful of extra no-hitters. Teams will bench their young stars or bury them in the minors so aging washed up veterans can reach some career milestones. Maybe, players trying to lead the league, should act in complete contradiction of the team strategy we set.

Not sure how that will work, but I'd never let the AI run my team that way. Playing washed up stars and keeping tired or injured players in the lineup for personal milestones or records isn't how I'll play. And if the AI is doing this, while I'm optimized for winning, then that's just making it all the easier for me to win.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Seems like a troll post and completely irrelevant.

Sarcasm.

If I were trolling you never would have figured it out.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by Drstrangelove

Irl, the players who were thought to be the greatest in their time (e.g., Wagner, Cobb, Mathewson, Young), had the most WAR. Ironically, Ruth, Gehrig, Alexander, Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial were identified as the greatest at their positions long before WAR was adopted and yet, they also have the most WAR.

Players in all eras have understood how games are won. Hitting, pitching, base running and defense. They understood the impact of various parks and strategies on the game outcomes. They understood that some players were more valuable than others. They understood that certain defensive positions were more important than others. They understood how to use outs to advance and score runners. That's WAR. WAR isn't a new conception of baseball: it's a mathematical way of looking at baseball the way people have always looked at it.



So, what exactly is the change?

What it sounds like is this: the AI should intentionally use players in the game in a way that will increase the chance of a personal achievement ---even if--- it reduces the chance of the AI winning and increasing the chances of injuries.

So, a few consecutive game streaks will be achieved along with (many) extra injuries and reduced performance. Pitchers will be kept in to throw no-hitters (while tired) leading to more blown out arms, early career exits, lost games, but a handful of extra no-hitters. Teams will bench their young stars or bury them in the minors so aging washed up veterans can reach some career milestones. Maybe, players trying to lead the league, should act in complete contradiction of the team strategy we set.

Not sure how that will work, but I'd never let the AI run my team that way. Playing washed up stars and keeping tired or injured players in the lineup for personal milestones or records isn't how I'll play. And if the AI is doing this, while I'm optimized for winning, then that's just making it all the easier for me to win.

Your first comment is overly simplistic and your second is exaggerated.

Who was left in the minors so an aging Cal could continue to play? Gehrig? Is it really that hard for you guys to make this parallel?

First, a scrub is never going to start a consecutive games streak because he wasn't good enough to start every game anyway. If you've read through what I've posted, I've said it's fine if Cal's streak never gets started. I'm also fine if it ends because of an injury. However, it should NEVER end because a manager chooses to give him a day off 1,200 games into it. If another player is good enough and durable enough to player every day and doesn't get a day off and hits 1,000 games, cool.

You guys look at this in such a vacuum. Cal was good enough to play every day. That's how the streak started. He didn't want a day off and the manager didn't think it was a detriment to the team to not give him one. I mean seriously. Guys play 150-155 games every year. How reduced is Cal's production getting 7-12 less days off a year. And is there a future Hall of Famer on the bench that is going to perform better on those 7-12 days? Lol.

Your second point illustrates the disconnect. You assume you're complely altering the game in some profound way. Yet...you're not! You're replicating real life which, regardless of what some of you want to say to meet your point, the game was absolutely meant to do. Its why you have real teams, players, managers, financials, league totals, etc. You can't say give me league totals so my "replication" meets realistic standards but then tell me the game is a fictional universe not meant to replicate reality. Its such an absurd contradiction.

All I'm asking for is managers to play their best players and not sit them just because they're programmed to do so (which is what it seems like). Then, if an extremely durable player who is also very good and without an even remotely skilled backup hits 5-6 seasons in a row without missing a game, they don't sit them without being significantly injured. It seems like a relatively small AI change but what do I know.

As far as WAR your point is overly simplified. Sure, we all know the best players. I don't think WAR was created to tell us Hank Aaron is great. It was designed, I believe, to differentiate the platoon level player from a replacement level player. Is this guy with the .300 AVG with little power and who doesn't walk a lot as good as we think he is? From my understanding AVG was always thought to be an overrated stat by sabermetric guys and they've looked for ways to prove it. That doesn't mean a manager in 1920 was looking at that. Why? Because OBP didn't even become a stat until 1984. It was ALL AVG. You looked at walks, sure, but they didn't care enough about them to make a stat for them. It was AVG, HR and RBI. That's how teams evaluated hitters along with base runnign and fielding.

I also didn't say WAR was the only stat I wanted hidden. I want any stat that was not available in the era hidden. No FIP, no wRC, no EFF rating or range factor. Why? Because that was real life. And everything in this game (at least in historicalals) was designed to mimic (if not exactly replicate) real life.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Your first comment is overly simplistic and your second is exaggerated.

Who was left in the minors so an aging Cal could continue to play? Gehrig? Is it really that hard for you guys to make this parallel?

First, a scrub is never going to start a consecutive games streak because he wasn't good enough to start every game anyway. If you've read through what I've posted, I've said it's fine if Cal's streak never gets started. I'm also fine if it ends because of an injury. However, it should NEVER end because a manager chooses to give him a day off 1,200 games into it. If another player is good enough and durable enough to player every day and doesn't get a day off and hits 1,000 games, cool.

You guys look at this in such a vacuum. Cal was good enough to play every day. That's how the streak started. He didn't want a day off and the manager didn't think it was a detriment to the team to not give him one. I mean seriously. Guys play 150-155 games every year. How reduced is Cal's production getting 7-12 less days off a year. And is there a future Hall of Famer on the bench that is going to perform better on those 7-12 days? Lol.

Your second point illustrates the disconnect. You assume you're complely altering the game in some profound way. Yet...you're not! You're replicating real life which, regardless of what some of you want to say to meet your point, the game was absolutely meant to do. Its why you have real teams, players, managers, financials, league totals, etc. You can't say give me league totals so my "replication" meets realistic standards but then tell me the game is a fictional universe not meant to replicate reality. Its such an absurd contradiction.

All I'm asking for is managers to play their best players and not sit them just because they're programmed to do so (which is what it seems like). Then, if an extremely durable player who is also very good and without an even remotely skilled backup hits 5-6 seasons in a row without missing a game, they don't sit them without being significantly injured. It seems like a relatively small AI change but what do I know.

As far as WAR your point is overly simplified. Sure, we all know the best players. I don't think WAR was created to tell us Hank Aaron is great. It was designed, I believe, to differentiate the platoon level player from a replacement level player. Is this guy with the .300 AVG with little power and who doesn't walk a lot as good as we think he is? From my understanding AVG was always thought to be an overrated stat by sabermetric guys and they've looked for ways to prove it. That doesn't mean a manager in 1920 was looking at that. Why? Because OBP didn't even become a stat until 1984. It was ALL AVG. You looked at walks, sure, but they didn't care enough about them to make a stat for them. It was AVG, HR and RBI. That's how teams evaluated hitters along with base runnign and fielding.

I also didn't say WAR was the only stat I wanted hidden. I want any stat that was not available in the era hidden. No FIP, no wRC, no EFF rating or range factor. Why? Because that was real life. And everything in this game (at least in historicalals) was designed to mimic (if not exactly replicate) real life.

We now know better about player fatigue than we did in the past, which is why you don't see consecutive games streaks of any significance anymore. Gehrig might be able to pull off a consecutive games streak in OOTP because he was a 1B, but Ripken probably shouldn't be able to because as a SS he's much more prone to injury. I'm sure there were times IRL when Ripken's health status/fatigue level was down to 0%, so he was risking injury due to being worn down every time he went out there, which makes what he did all the more remarkable. I can see where you'd want to see it happen in your game, but just because it happened IRL doesn't necessarily mean it would make sense for it to happen in an OOTP game.

The point of a bench player starting in place of a regular is not because the bench guy is better. Everybody knows that. It's to give the regular a chance to rest during an incredibly long (some would say endless) season. Bench guys are an absolutely essential part of the team for that reason. If as a manager, you threw your team's starting lineup out there day after day with no rest days, I guarantee you that by August your team would be burnt to a crisp. As great as Cal was, I'd be willing to bet his rate stats would've been even better had he taken a day off from the every day grind here and there.

OBP may not have been a stat, but baseball players (even little leaguers) have known forever that it's better to reach base than it is to make an out, which is what OBP measures. As long as your hidden stats suggestion is an option, I'd be OK with it, but I love having access to advanced stats in whatever year I'm playing.

[majesty95]

I definitely think hiding stats for older leagues should be an option not a requirement. Everyone needs their own sandbox.

I get what you're saying with Ripken. I think saying he was at 0% is probably a stretch though. I think some people are mentally and physically stronger than others. Nolan Ryan pitching no hitters at 47 is improbable too. Hell, pitching in general at that age, but he did it. Tom Brady playing at that level at his age is improbable. But i think you have to figure out a way to do it. Madden used to retire Brady after season 1 every year bc of his age. They figured out how to make him the exception.

I think there has to be a way to make Cal and Gehrig exceptions. For me, personally, its a huge turn off from the game when all I play is historicals and mostly in the 80's and every time I do I know there is zero chance Cal will ever finish the first season with his streak in tact. I'm not asking for a huge dev resource put into it either. Just a modifier to make these one offs possible. You wouldn't want your manager to pull a guy on a 55-game hitting streak after going 0-1 ending the streak. You shouldn't want your manager giving a guy who played 1,000 straight games the day off just because he's at some predetermined stamina %.

[Brad K]

" but just because it happened IRL doesn't necessarily mean it would make sense for it to happen in an OOTP game."

Actually just because it happened IRL doesn't mean it makes sense to happen IRL.

[wallewalls]

What about if in your "fictional historical game", which is what they all are, Cal is playing so badly that its actually hurting the team by having him in there every single day? Since as you soon as you press advance day, anything can happen, what if Cal turns into a subpar player? Should the AI continue to play him "for the love of the streak" or should he get benched? I'd hope the game would recognize that having him in the lineup everyday is costing the team games, and would sit him even if the streak has to end

[Drstrangelove]

Originally Posted by majesty95

As far as WAR your point is overly simplified. Sure, we all know the best players. I don't think WAR was created to tell us Hank Aaron is great. It was designed, I believe, to differentiate the platoon level player from a replacement level player.

Nope. That wasn't the purpose. https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

"Wins Above Replacement (WAR) is an attempt by the sabermetric baseball community to summarize a player’s total contributions to their team in one statistic." Afaik, this has always been the intent. It's what scouts, managers and owners have been trying to do for over a century: figure out who is the best and what they are worth. The fact that there is a high correlation between those players that were highly rated (and paid) and WAR only demonstrates that managers understood a great deal about what makes a good player.

While platoon players were being used at least by the by mid 20th century, they have nothing at all to do with replacement player. A platoon player is a real person used in a certain fashion. A replacement level player is not a real person, but a mathematical construct (for the purpose of defining WAR.) So no, WAR was not invented to define concepts that were used to define WAR. WAR was created to describe in math terms how teams win by virtue of each player's on the field contribution.

Originally Posted by majesty95

It was AVG, HR and RBI. That's how teams evaluated hitters along with base runnign and fielding. I also didn't say WAR was the only stat I wanted hidden. I want any stat that was not available in the era hidden. No FIP, no wRC, no EFF rating or range factor. Why? Because that was real life. And everything in this game (at least in historicalals) was designed to mimic (if not exactly replicate) real life.

Unfortunately, we as human baseball fans can't unlearn modern concepts.

The AI will ignore pitch counts because no one kept pitch counts for 120 years, (but we won't.) So, the AI will blow out pitching staffs. The AI will ignore park factors since they didn't exist for even longer, so Mile High batters will be over rated and Oakland batters under rated. (Pitchers, just the opposite.) The AI will over value the RBI and undervalue walks, but we won't. (Maybe it should also over value wins and strikeouts, and ignore ERA.) So Jeff Burroughs, Tony Perez, Steve Garvey, and Albert Belle will be the top super stars.

Trying to make the AI make decisions based upon ideas we now know are poor is a problem, imo, if you can't make the humans do the same. I fail to see how these changes don't inflate our current advantages.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Drstrangelove

Nope. That wasn't the purpose. https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

"Wins Above Replacement (WAR) is an attempt by the sabermetric baseball community to summarize a player’s total contributions to their team in one statistic." Afaik, this has always been the intent. It's what scouts, managers and owners have been trying to do for over a century: figure out who is the best and what they are worth. The fact that there is a high correlation between those players that were highly rated (and paid) and WAR only demonstrates that managers understood a great deal about what makes a good player.

While platoon players were being used at least by the by mid 20th century, they have nothing at all to do with replacement player. A platoon player is a real person used in a certain fashion. A replacement level player is not a real person, but a mathematical construct (for the purpose of defining WAR.) So no, WAR was not invented to define concepts that were used to define WAR. WAR was created to describe in math terms how teams win by virtue of each player's on the field contribution.



Unfortunately, we as human baseball fans can't unlearn modern concepts.

The AI will ignore pitch counts because no one kept pitch counts for 120 years, (but we won't.) So, the AI will blow out pitching staffs. The AI will ignore park factors since they didn't exist for even longer, so Mile High batters will be over rated and Oakland batters under rated. (Pitchers, just the opposite.) The AI will over value the RBI and undervalue walks, but we won't. (Maybe it should also over value wins and strikeouts, and ignore ERA.) So Jeff Burroughs, Tony Perez, Steve Garvey, and Albert Belle will be the top super stars.

Trying to make the AI make decisions based upon ideas we now know are poor is a problem, imo, if you can't make the humans do the same. I fail to see how these changes don't inflate our current advantages.

Hear, hear. Nailed it.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by Drstrangelove

The AI will ignore pitch counts because no one kept pitch counts for 120 years, (but we won't.) So, the AI will blow out pitching staffs. The AI will ignore park factors since they didn't exist for even longer, so Mile High batters will be over rated and Oakland batters under rated. (Pitchers, just the opposite.) The AI will over value the RBI and undervalue walks, but we won't. (Maybe it should also over value wins and strikeouts, and ignore ERA.) So Jeff Burroughs, Tony Perez, Steve Garvey, and Albert Belle will be the top super stars.

Trying to make the AI make decisions based upon ideas we now know are poor is a problem, imo, if you can't make the humans do the same. I fail to see how these changes don't inflate our current advantages.

There is some limited capacity on having the AI recognize some facets of what's discussed here (although to be honest, I haven't attempted to use it in years) - that is you can have the AI weigh value of a player, putting a certain Percentage in:
This year's stats
Last year's stats
Ratings
(and one more, I think it's 2 year's ago's stats?)

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by majesty95

I definitely think hiding stats for older leagues should be an option not a requirement. Everyone needs their own sandbox.

I get what you're saying with Ripken. I think saying he was at 0% is probably a stretch though. I think some people are mentally and physically stronger than others. Nolan Ryan pitching no hitters at 47 is improbable too. Hell, pitching in general at that age, but he did it. Tom Brady playing at that level at his age is improbable. But i think you have to figure out a way to do it. Madden used to retire Brady after season 1 every year bc of his age. They figured out how to make him the exception.

I think there has to be a way to make Cal and Gehrig exceptions. For me, personally, its a huge turn off from the game when all I play is historicals and mostly in the 80's and every time I do I know there is zero chance Cal will ever finish the first season with his streak in tact. I'm not asking for a huge dev resource put into it either. Just a modifier to make these one offs possible. You wouldn't want your manager to pull a guy on a 55-game hitting streak after going 0-1 ending the streak. You shouldn't want your manager giving a guy who played 1,000 straight games the day off just because he's at some predetermined stamina %.

The point is these guys are humungous historical outliers. Like, if you've got a bell curve, they are so far to the right that they don't even make it onto the page. It's probably a lot harder to program it into the game than we might think it is, and doing so could open up a whole can of repercussions that we can't even conceive of right now. That's why I would be against it, but you are for it, so you should lobby for it.

In case you missed it earlier in the thread, I posted an image of the career of my Cal Ripken (well not mine because I don't run a team) in a 63-season long OOTP16 historical random debut game. By JAWS, which is derived from career WAR and peak WAR, so that we can look at the all around game of a player, he turned out to be a top ten player (#8 in fact [by far the top SS, Arky Vaughan was a distant second], and not just position players, but that includes pitchers as well) all-time.

In this game, I used Neutralized Stats, 3-year recalc double weighted, and neutralized the ballpark factors and the weather (Garlon told me about this early on in my time here, and I think it works well, so I still use it), based potential ratings on Remaining Years of career, and based rookie fielding ratings and pitcher stamina on the 3-year period option. I also kept the player development system on and used both it and recalc because the option to retire according to history, and have players miss seasons according to history are both not available in random debut play for obvious reasons. Also, my LTMs were calculated according to 1984 season totals regardless of the year being played as another way of placing everyone on a level playing field. 1984 happens to be a part of Ripken's RL career, so his stats should come reasonably close to RL.

OOTP Ripken played a total of 24 seasons, but his final full season was his 19th season, and he hung on for five more with limited playing time (533 PA in total). RL Ripken played 21 seasons, but I think it's fair to say that he was pretty much done after his 16th season (1996), aside from the blip partial season of 1999. The comparison of his RL stats and his OOTP stats, and his achievements in both follows:

RL Ripken Stats: 3,001 G, 12,883 PA, 11,551 AB, 1,647 R, 3,184 H, 603 2B, 44 3B, 431 HR, 1,695 RBI, 36 SB, 39 CS, 1,129 BB, 1,305 K, .276/.340/.447/.780, 112 OPS+, 112 wRC+, 95.9 bWAR, 92.5 fWAR, 76.1 JAWS, 19 Black Ink, 116 Gray Ink, 236 HoF Monitor, 58 HoF Standards

RL Ripken Achievements (outside of the streak): 2 MVP, 1 ROY, 19 ASG, 1 WS, 2 GG, 8 SS.

OOTP Ripken Stats: 3,020 G, 12,416 PA, 11,213 AB, 1,504 R, 3,117 H, 536 2B, 56 3B, 468 HR, 1,769 RBI, 23 SB, 15 CS, 1,041 BB, 1,251 K, .278/.339/.461/.800, 124 OPS+, 122 wRC+, 107.5 WAR, 83.4 JAWS, 25 Black Ink, 194 Gray Ink, 326 HoF Monitor, 59 HoF Standards

OOTP Ripken Achievements: 3 MVP (1921-1923 inclusive!), 10 ASG, 5 WS, 8 GG (that's more like it!), 10 SS.

Based on this, I would say that OOTP Ripken was the better Ripken despite the difference in the Popularity Vote Game numbers...er I mean All-Star Game numbers. OOTP Ripken was a mere mortal and had some days off and lost some time to injuries, but I think that helped his rate stats, and advanced stats. Of course it cost him a bit in the counting stats, but not much. I think the rest and recovery from injuries helped his numbers because he wasn't as rundown as he must've been IRL. All I'm saying with respect to consecutive game streaks is be careful what you wish for. With rest and recuperation players can sometimes do better than they will playing everyday through the grind of each season.

[majesty95]

In regards to my Ripken developing less than RL Ripken Is say he probably would never get a very long steak to begin with. I had a different league where he was below avg and didn’t even make an AS team. No issue there. My issue is starting him in the middle of the steak 1,000-1,200 games in and he sits within a month or two just to “rest”.

I still disagree with the WAR theory. It’s harder to determine a 1 WAR player from a 4 WAR player. But I do get the idea that we’ll use ideas the AI won’t. But is that bad? Don’t use it if it’s too easy. I think it would be fun to play like old manager and focus on AVG and HR and SBs and play against managers who do the same. As is, every historical you play is played under today’s terms which kind of limits the enjoyment factor

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by majesty95

In regards to my Ripken developing less than RL Ripken Is say he probably would never get a very long steak to begin with. I had a different league where he was below avg and didn’t even make an AS team. No issue there. My issue is starting him in the middle of the steak 1,000-1,200 games in and he sits within a month or two just to “rest”.

I still disagree with the WAR theory. It’s harder to determine a 1 WAR player from a 4 WAR player. But I do get the idea that we’ll use ideas the AI won’t. But is that bad? Don’t use it if it’s too easy. I think it would be fun to play like old manager and focus on AVG and HR and SBs and play against managers who do the same. As is, every historical you play is played under today’s terms which kind of limits the enjoyment factor

We disagree, but much respect. It's your game...You should play it your way.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by majesty95

In regards to my Ripken developing less than RL Ripken Is say he probably would never get a very long steak to begin with. I had a different league where he was below avg and didn’t even make an AS team. No issue there. My issue is starting him in the middle of the steak 1,000-1,200 games in and he sits within a month or two just to “rest”.

I still disagree with the WAR theory. It’s harder to determine a 1 WAR player from a 4 WAR player. But I do get the idea that we’ll use ideas the AI won’t. But is that bad? Don’t use it if it’s too easy. I think it would be fun to play like old manager and focus on AVG and HR and SBs and play against managers who do the same. As is, every historical you play is played under today’s terms which kind of limits the enjoyment factor

Do you use recalc or player development on its own? I use a combination of both (with development set to default settings), and it's allowed me to have realistic careers for very good players, while allowing those without much RL playing time to have amazing careers or fall flat on their faces or any number of scenarios in between. I wouldn't play any other way, and I'm hooked on historical random debut leagues, and highly doubt I'll play any other type of the many types OOTP allows you to play.