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

[Reed]

Originally Posted by 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.

Your HR and BA results are excellent. It has been a few years since I tried 1 yr recalc because I was getting to many .400 hitters(over 20) but maybe I will try that again. Thanks for posting!!!

[Brad K]

Hey testers, that's cool and all but how is it that every test gets the results you desire? A test is what started this thread, it was debunked, and now we're back to tests.

There's no need to test. Open the editor and look. Certain players aren't rated for their real life performance. The devs have admitted it. They've explained why. They've acknowledged that these players often won't reach their historic peaks.

Yet people are posting test results thinking they're "proving" me and others wrong. No. They're posting test results that supposedly prove what shows in the editor is wrong and supposedly prove what the devs say about how the game works is wrong. This is just too funny.

[quillenl]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Hey testers, that's cool and all but how is it that every test gets the results you desire? A test is what started this thread, it was debunked, and now we're back to tests.

There's no need to test. Open the editor and look. Certain players aren't rated for their real life performance. The devs have admitted it. They've explained why. They've acknowledged that these players often won't reach their historic peaks.

Yet people are posting test results thinking they're "proving" me and others wrong. No. They're posting test results that supposedly prove what shows in the editor is wrong and supposedly prove what the devs say about how the game works is wrong. This is just too funny.

Please just stop. You are literally saying what people are posting is impossible because the developers have it hard coded to prevent it because one of the developers secretly disliked that Maris broke Ruth's Home Run record. Reread your own thread... they admitted no such thing. I mean, are you really suggesting that the developers are trying to prevent Home Run record breaking... but are just really bad at coding it?

The results are as expected if you want a semi historically history... and the Home Run record gets broken about half the time.

Feel free to run your own test and post the results. All you did in the other thread was look at the editor, not understand what you were looking at, and make accusations about data results that are easily disproved...which you refer to as irrelevant data.

Your continued implications that people are lieing when they demonstrate results that show you are wrong are both tiring and insulting. You clearly do not understand what the devs said in your thread.

Players often won't reach their historical peaks... true. They'll also often exceed them. Keep having a tantrum about it though... that certainly makes you look right.

[Brad K]

I don't need to run a test. I can read the editor. I can read what the devs said (they reduced the ratings of certain players so they were unlikely to reach historic peaks).

Your argument is not with me although you try to make it with me. Tantrum? Weren't there enough laughing emotes in my last post? I'm seriously enjoying the foolishness here.

[Tiger Fan]

I don't play a lot of historical sims any more -find I have kind of done it all just too many times over the past 20-odd years with OOTP so I have moved on to primarily fictional players using historical modifiers and structure- but after reading this and knowing full well from my sims that I have seen a few outlier HR totals I thought I would fire up a quick league with OOTP24 and sim from 1901-1980.

Below are my single season and career HR leaders. I have to say these look pretty darn good when you consider for me Ruth hit 63 in 1927 and Maris 61 in 1961. If you want an outlier how about Hank Greenberg's 1938 when he hit 65 (compared to 58 in real life). Or Bobby Bonds hitting 55 in 1977 (compared to a real-life career high of 39).

I don't worry about the ratings, just the results. This is basically an out of the box setup with Historical lineups and transactions on and 1 year recalculate. Scouting, injuries and player development all turned off.

I have no idea if, as Brad K asserts, the developers artificially deflate ratings of outlier home run hitters. All I know is whatever they do or don't do certainly seems to pass the smell test with me. I like a little deviation in my historical sims (so I usually use the development engine instead of recalculate for my sims) but I can't see where someone who wants homerun hitters to duplicate or occasionally exceed their real-life numbers can find any fault in results like this.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Hey testers, that's cool and all but how is it that every test gets the results you desire? A test is what started this thread, it was debunked, and now we're back to tests.

There's no need to test. Open the editor and look. Certain players aren't rated for their real life performance. The devs have admitted it. They've explained why. They've acknowledged that these players often won't reach their historic peaks.

Yet people are posting test results thinking they're "proving" me and others wrong. No. They're posting test results that supposedly prove what shows in the editor is wrong and supposedly prove what the devs say about how the game works is wrong. This is just too funny.

Funny how you're telling people to read when you seem to be the only person here who doesn't understand the discussion at all.

Maris *is* rated exactly as his performance dictates. His performance does *not* dictate hitting 61 HRs, though.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I don't need to run a test. I can read the editor. I can read what the devs said (they reduced the ratings of certain players so they were unlikely to reach historic peaks)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can just compare the player editor power ratings for Maris and Mantle and call it a day. Mantle was a switch-hitter and Maris was a lefty. This meant that Maris benefits from the very advantageous HR park factor for LHB in Yankee Stadium every single home at-bat, but Mantle only gets it against righties.


I'm not saying it makes the difference because I don't know. But I do know that it has to be considered and it will have the effect of giving Maris a very high HR boost, around 40%, over Mantle against LHP in Yankee Stadium.

[Syd Thrift]

Yeah, coincidentally, Brad K has also demanded that the devs just like magically make those numbers in the editor equal what the game produces, apparently, too, in any environment and situation given how this issue has come up specifically with Maris and Yankee Stadium in mind. Incidentally if you go by Seamheads ratings instead of the ones that come with the game, lefties hit HRs (using 3 year rates) at 1.22 to 0.72 for righties. Just replacing those alone and not taking into account expansion pitching or the fact that Maris never had to face the 2nd best pitching staff in the league, you’d see Maris average around 55 HRs in 1961. I’m guessing that with those items in mind he’d average in the high 50s over several runs of 1961 just all by itself…

But yeah, this stuff is why you can’t just Debate Club changes into the game. If your fee fees tell you that players are hitting too few HRs, you really can’t just leave it at that and expect any change. Perhaps if you ran, say, 25 replays you’d see Maris averaging like 30 HR a year and never breaking the record. That of course would be way off base and a sign the devs need to calibrate (not to mention, it gives them information as to exactly how much they need to calibrate). That’s not what’s being done here and perhaps that’s why certain people aren’t being taken seriously.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Unfortunately, I don't think we can just compare the player editor power ratings for Maris and Mantle and call it a day. Mantle was a switch-hitter and Maris was a lefty. This meant that Maris benefits from the very advantageous HR park factor for LHB in Yankee Stadium every single home at-bat, but Mantle only gets it against righties.


I'm not saying it makes the difference because I don't know. But I do know that it has to be considered and it will have the effect of giving Maris a very high HR boost, around 40%, over Mantle against LHP in Yankee Stadium.

Well this is an interesting issue. For starters Mantle was much more effective against LHP than RHP. I think he should have realized being a switch hitter wasn't working. The typical advantage for LHB facing RHP is in the vicinity of 20 - 25 points on BA (I'm typing this from memory, I did a study of this years ago and the data may be on my old computer. Note I don't have data on obp and slg)

Here's what we have for Mantle on career splits

vs RHP 281/419/547
vs LHP 330/424/576

Had Mantle experienced the typical 20-25 point disadvantage in batting RHB vs RHP he could have hit 305-310 batting right against right.

The slg number isn't much higher batting RH and this might be due to the Yankee Stadium effect you mentioned.

However the stadium effects don't help Maris in comparison with Mantle. Mantle was a much better hitter right handed and Maris wilted against LHP. The park didn't help him. Here's Maris for 1961

vs RHP 286/384/683
vs LHP 232/347/475


And career

vs RHP 274/359/506
vs LHP 219/307/390

One after the other for easy comparison, career number

vs LHP 330/424/576 Mantle
vs LHP 219/307/390 Maris

Anyway, Mantle having to bat RH due to a LHP was a huge disadvantage for Maris.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Yeah, coincidentally, Brad K has also demanded that the devs just like magically make those numbers in the editor equal what the game produces,

I never demanded that. You and others are making stuff up about me. It's the old game, call the opponent unethical, immoral, uninformed, manipulative, and other negative personality trait you can think of, when the facts are against you and you have no point to make.

I don't know if you'll convince anyone other than yourself, but if you continue trying its evidence of your desperation.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Unfortunately, I don't think we can just compare the player editor power ratings for Maris and Mantle and call it a day. Mantle was a switch-hitter and Maris was a lefty. This meant that Maris benefits from the very advantageous HR park factor for LHB in Yankee Stadium every single home at-bat, but Mantle only gets it against righties.


I'm not saying it makes the difference because I don't know. But I do know that it has to be considered and it will have the effect of giving Maris a very high HR boost, around 40%, over Mantle against LHP in Yankee Stadium.

Finally! I wondered how long this would go on before someone mentioned the significant park HR splits.

Although, I would note that one potentially mitigating factor would be that Mantle would have the platoon advantage against LHPs, theoretically (at least) facing lower pitcher ratings.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Unfortunately, I don't think we can just compare the player editor power ratings for Maris and Mantle and call it a day. Mantle was a switch-hitter and Maris was a lefty. This meant that Maris benefits from the very advantageous HR park factor for LHB in Yankee Stadium every single home at-bat, but Mantle only gets it against righties.

You're right about not being able to compare the power ratings in the editor and have the differences be meaningful for small amounts but its not due to the park factors you've mentioned.

The output shown in the editor is a result of giving the LH rating 25% weight and the RH rating 75% weigh.

The problem with this is the actual percentage of PAs RH is (from memory) a touch under 70%. And many batters will deviate substantially.

So whether the output in the editor can be relied upon depends on how they figured the splits ratings.

When OOTP had random splits I edited my players to real splits by applying career splits to individual season but weighted them to match the player's actual percentage of ABs against each side. This resulted in the output shown in the editor being a bit different from what OOTP started with.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by jcard

Finally! I wondered how long this would go on before someone mentioned the significant park HR splits.

Although, I would note that one potentially mitigating factor would be that Mantle would have the platoon advantage against LHPs, theoretically (at least) facing lower pitcher ratings.

No theory. Mantle was better vs LHP than vs RHP and Maris was terrible against LHP.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

That’s not what’s being done here and perhaps that’s why certain people aren’t being taken seriously.

As I posted earlier, attack the poster when you have no facts. Its traditional.

[italyprof]

I like, and learn from everyone on this thread and in this forum. Brothers ( and sisters if there are any here), let's argue, disagree, but keep it friendly and courteous please.

[italyprof]

My comment above is directed to everyone including myself, not to anyone I particular.

[thehef]

I'd say the v24 test results posted by quillenl and Tiger Fan are encouraging, and suggestive of subtle improvements made in this area for OOTP 24. Too early to say for sure, but they might just make the bulk of this discussion moot!

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by thehef

I'd say the v24 test results posted by quillenl and Tiger Fan are encouraging, and suggestive of subtle improvements made in this area for OOTP 24. Too early to say for sure, but they might just make the bulk of this discussion moot!

I thought the same thing. Very promising.

[HRBaker]

Different peoples' expectations are the major issue here I think. Everyone has a different idea how a historical replay should occur. Some want "almost-exact" results and others want "believable" results. I believe OOTP as it currently stands is "believable". I see myself in the second group. An "exact" replay has already happened historically. I'm looking for variation.

This discussion also brings up how different fantasy scenarios are. Since there are no historical expections to meet, the experience is more like viewing the MLB for the first time. "Anything can happen."

(2 cents)

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

The question is then; "What is realistic" for Maris in 1961? (example) 50, 60, 70 homeruns? Each of us would have a different answer - THUS - there's no "template" OOTP could follow that everyone would accept.

Me? I think 55 to 65 would be reasonable, but I alos know if I played the season 100 times 55 and 70 would also occur, and I'm ok with that.