Interaction Of Settings With Auto-Calc

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I've proved my points with data. Nobody has offered any evidence I'm wrong.

As I have read, Rainking, Garlon, AND MATT have all told you that you were wrong but you choose to ignore what they said and argue with them that what you are doing is right, when it is not. You want the game to play the way you think it should that does not make what you have done right in any sense and these people have been working with the OOTP devs for YEARS to get this stuff right but you want to call them wrong? Come on man.

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Recalc rates players compared to league average...not compared to specific statistical results.

So, when you run 3 or 5 year recalc you are rating the player compared to league average across those seasons instead of using just 1 season.

Their stats are then produced based on the League Totals/Modifiers you use.

So, if a player averages a Power rating (i.e. home runs per plate appearance) of 1.15 times the league average across the 3-5 years...then they will be given a rating that should produce 15% more home runs than a league average player.

The number of home runs that a league average player will hit is determined by the League Totals/Modifiers.

Recalc 3 and 5 year looks back at years you simmed. it is not all future (not simmed)

[fredbeene]

If you are playing in 3-yr recalc mode in 1988, for example, then player ratings will be based on 1987+1988+1989 stats. If you are playing in 3-yr recalc mode with "double-weight" in 1988, then player ratings will be based on 1987+1988+1988+1989 stats.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

Recalc 3 and 5 year looks back at years you simmed. it is not all future (not simmed)

This is incorrect.

If you are playing in 3-yr recalc mode in 1988, for example, then player ratings will be based on 1987+1988+1989 stats. If you are playing in 3-yr recalc mode with "double-weight" in 1988, then player ratings will be based on 1987+1988+1988+1989 stats.

EDIT: You just posted the same thing as I did It is not, as you stated, a look 3 or 5 years backward, nor on the stats as simmed.

The other players in the league do matter as the displayed ratings are relative to the talent in the league.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by jcard

If there is any trolling here, it must be a group conspiracy to talk past each other and give us all an OOTP production of “Who’s on First?”.

Auto-Calc and Ratings

With AC:

1. Ratings DO matter in the sense of absolute ratings between the players. For Example: Regardless of AC, a player with an X absolute Power rating will hit more HRs than another player in the league who has a <X absolute rating.

2. Ratings DON’T matter in that the expected statistical output from a given absolute rating is determined by that value relative to that of other players in the league (as per above) AND the league total targets (via the Auto-Calc LTMs).

Apologies to everyone who read for not noticing the errant characters in the original. It is a formatting issue that only shows up in the posted message (not in the composing stage).

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

Does it matter what the plethora of available options and combinations of options under the historical tab are set to for auto-calc to be always be the recommended option? I don't have a horse in this race so this is just something I wonder about. It would seem that auto-calc's sole job is to align total/aggregate outcomes with seasonal totals. The historical settings allow some control over how the aggregates are arrived at. Historical options are variable, auto-calc is the secret sauce that makes them all come together, more or less, so they taste like cake.

In my "historical" (using that term loosely) save I have 24 MLB teams in 1943. I have only one setting checkmarked under the historical tab. I want players to develop according to ratings because of the extra rosters. I don't know if this is the best way, but auto-calc seems to be the best means of getting results that look lets say non-jarring (since I don't know what realistic would be, and it sure isn't historical). I get stats I can live with realizing the stats could be completely unrealistic for that setup were it to have occurred IRL.

So, it seems the software and design is fairly robust to be able to pull that off? Or the designers have guessed well as to what will satisfy me? However, I also consider myself to be a very undemanding player. I also wonder how many options OOTP could afford to remove before the average player began missing them.

What did you leave set to ON in the historical settings screen?

How are you getting the extra players to fill the extra MLB teams? Full minors? Fictional players?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by robc

Where I do agree with you is that OOTP should have more complete explanations of how things work so features are clear to players.

Yes. That's exactly what I want.

The first step to that goal is showing that auto-calc doesn't work like people think it does. Currently most people say I'm wrong. The same thing happened in my thread about pre-calc. Eventually my ideas were adopted by OOTP. I expect that will be the result here.

While we disagree on some of the details of player effects. overall we're on the same page concerning its affect on league output. And that's what matters the most.

I posted examples in post 42 of how informative notes next to the settings could read. Is there one you prefer? Do you have suggestions about how to improve it?

[WhiskyTango]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What did you leave set to ON in the historical settings screen?

How are you getting the extra players to fill the extra MLB teams? Full minors? Fictional players?

Historical setting is "import historical rookies".

These go into an amateur draft of 27 rounds. Three levels of fictional minor leagues which seem to seldom if ever require fictional players to fill out rosters. I have set fictional MiL players to not play MLB. Would real MiL be more productive, you think? I began the save in the 1910s and I don't think real MiL exist until later.

The only thing not working with this setup is MLB age restriction. When I set the lower restriction to 21 the game cannot manage the draft. Have found often young prospects (eg Ted Williams - calibre) may be left as unsigned FAs for years until the season corresponding to the year they turn 21, or they are signed / released as top league prospects. Removing the restriction enters teenagers into the game which is not realistic, but then neither are 24 teams in 1943.

However, this last observation is not really relevant since it could work if the game could manage the age restriction/MiL management issue.

[WhiskyTango]

Will just add to the observation that OOTP needs to revamp their communication - perhaps make that the big feature add for v26. That so few answer these threads, and those that do respond are typically the same posters who seem also involved directly in game development somehow, suggests virtually no one really understands these settings, at least not enough to feel confident to contribute to a thread.

One problem with that scenario if it is accurate is OOTP cannot be as "sandbox" as it thinks when hardly anyone knows what many of the settings do. And some have posted about "feature fatigue". When people encounter information we do not understand we get bored with it, especially technical information. Not because it lacks pertinence but because we cannot make the connection between how we use it and the outcome.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

Historical setting is "import historical rookies".

These go into an amateur draft of 27 rounds. Three levels of fictional minor leagues which seem to seldom if ever require fictional players to fill out rosters. I have set fictional MiL players to not play MLB. Would real MiL be more productive, you think? I began the save in the 1910s and I don't think real MiL exist until later.

So a third of your MLB players are guys who spent most of their careers in the minors?

[WhiskyTango]

Ya, I seem to recall it was around there. I seem to recall having this discussion in another thread and I forget the exact figures. Or maybe that was about 4A players.

Threads like these seem to require visitors to figure out who's right and who's trolling, which seems like a breakdown in communication on the developer's part to explain the game adequately. Or unless they do feel they have explained it adequately.

Maybe the devs could post an instruction video with a walk through on what to expect with various settings/combos.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

Ya, I seem to recall it was around there. I seem to recall having this discussion in another thread and I forget the exact figures. Or maybe that was about 4A players.

I don't know if the following applies to 4A players but this is what I've noticed with career minor league batters who make MLB.

Their profile is not that of an average MLB player. They tend to have low contact ratings, low power ratings, high eye ratings, and high fielding ratings. The pattern in pitchers is lower stamina but high enough ratings that they out rate real MLB and fill up the bullpens.

You know the talent in your league is highly diluted but in addition to that the profile of the players is different. Also you're using the development engine only. I don't know its effects but I've never seen a claim that it results in average talent being the same as historic talent. In fact, it seems nearly impossible for it to do this.

It would have to figure the plusses and minuses from historic for every player and then adjust the development for a zero sum. They get the same result from using auto-calc without much effort.

It may be that there are limits to how much adjustment auto-calc can make but I don't know if there are. If you get historic results with auto-calc in a league with highly diluted talent and atypical player profiles, then if here's a limit you haven't reached it.

Concerning the items you have unchecked on the Historical tab, I don't see any that I can imagine prevent auto-calc from controlling the league output to match historic league output.

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

...One problem with that scenario if it is accurate is OOTP cannot be as "sandbox" as it thinks when hardly anyone knows what many of the settings do. And some have posted about "feature fatigue". When people encounter information we do not understand we get bored with it, especially technical information. Not because it lacks pertinence but because we cannot make the connection between how we use it and the outcome.

As much as I love OOTP baseball--and I have been playing it since it was Season Ticket Baseball 2003--I have to say I am one of those who feels that the game may have reached a limit in terms of how enjoyable it can be to someone who just wants to play a text-based baseball management sim that produces realistic stats. I feel like a heretic saying this, but it's beginning to feel just a bit like FM, which is so bloated that years ago it began to feel like a real-life job.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Yes. That's exactly what I want.

The first step to that goal is showing that auto-calc doesn't work like people think it does. Currently most people say I'm wrong. The same thing happened in my thread about pre-calc. Eventually my ideas were adopted by OOTP. I expect that will be the result here.

While we disagree on some of the details of player effects. overall we're on the same page concerning its affect on league output. And that's what matters the most.

I posted examples in post 42 of how informative notes next to the settings could read. Is there one you prefer? Do you have suggestions about how to improve it?

I like the autocalc explanation in the lower left box because it most accurately reflects what autocalc does and is succinct.

I'm not sure something as complex as OOTP can get away with only trying to explain settings within the screens. I think there should be documentation that goes into more detail with maybe a link to it on the relevant screens, along with access to it outside of the game.

Even though I have bought almost all the versions since OOTP 9, I really haven't played much in many versions so it's possible the documentation has improved, but I doubt it. I don't even see an online manual for 25 and 26.
For example, the manual has an entry

"Ratings recalculation base: Defines whether to base ratings recalculation on a 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year span."

Well, that is kind of stating the obvious. There should be an explanation as to why someone may want to choose more than 1 year. (Have less players with limited stats to calculate ratings from, smooth out performance extremes by incorporating more data, etc), and also reasons why not to use more than 1 year (if you want to try and replicate single season performance).

One of the reasons I don't play much is that so much information is hidden. For example, if you manage a game you have the option to Hit and Run. Well, to me the game should at least inform the player the factors that go into a successful hit and run. Using common sense I'd say someone with high contact and avoid K is good, and a high strikeout pitcher would make it more difficult. Is there more factors? I don't know. I'm not looking for the formulas or anything, just an overview of what's involved. There are a lot of areas that could use it.

If people like Garlon or other long time players who have been deeply involved in the game, the OOTP Community will lose a major source of their knowledge. I wish it could be preserved somewhere for everyone to reference and learn from without needing to ask the same questions over and over and hoep people are still around who know the answers.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by robc

I like the autocalc explanation in the lower left box because it most accurately reflects what autocalc does and is succinct.

I'm unclear which screen shot you mean. On my screen they display vertically.

I'm not sure something as complex as OOTP can get away with only trying to explain settings within the screens. I think there should be documentation that goes into more detail with maybe a link to it on the relevant screens, along with access to it outside of the game.

Even though I have bought almost all the versions since OOTP 9, I really haven't played much in many versions so it's possible the documentation has improved, but I doubt it. I don't even see an online manual for 25 and 26.

The last game manual was 24. It was out of date and had errors. Some of the public promoted the idea of replacing it with a Wiki. That was approved. There was hope that public participation would allow the Wiki to catch up with the game and then keep pace with it.

For example, the manual has an entry

"Ratings recalculation base: Defines whether to base ratings recalculation on a 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year span."

Well, that is kind of stating the obvious. There should be an explanation as to why someone may want to choose more than 1 year. (Have less players with limited stats to calculate ratings from, smooth out performance extremes by incorporating more data, etc), and also reasons why not to use more than 1 year (if you want to try and replicate single season performance).

You've given a reason not to use more than one year. Is there a reason to use it?

One of the reasons I don't play much is that so much information is hidden. For example, if you manage a game you have the option to Hit and Run. Well, to me the game should at least inform the player the factors that go into a successful hit and run. Using common sense I'd say someone with high contact and avoid K is good, and a high strikeout pitcher would make it more difficult. Is there more factors? I don't know. I'm not looking for the formulas or anything, just an overview of what's involved. There are a lot of areas that could use it.

If people like Garlon or other long time players who have been deeply involved in the game, the OOTP Community will lose a major source of their knowledge. I wish it could be preserved somewhere for everyone to reference and learn from without needing to ask the same questions over and over and hoep people are still around who know the answers.

Task one is to find the answers.

Great post robc.

[robc]

Sorry...
I like the one that says "Output for league matches selected year."

You've given a reason not to use more than one year. Is there a reason to use it?

Have less players with limited stats to calculate ratings from, smooth out performance extremes by incorporating more data, etc...

By the above I don't mean that everyone would want to use 3 or 5 year because of this but for some players these reasons are desirable. If your driving goal is to replicate a season as much as possible, than you probably want to stick with 1 year. If you want to limit players getting rated with limited data or limited the impact of extreme single season performance than go with 3 or 5 year.

I've used single and multi year recalc in my different solo leagues. I don't like playing with as played lineups because I prefer to be involved in as many ways as I can, so I don't like it when there are players based on low AB/IP because I don't want to abuse highly rated players who only played a little bit. If I used as played lineups (which I have), then I don't mind using players with limited ABs because the as played lineups helps keep their usage under control.

When I use multi year recalc I tend to use the double the weight of the current year setting to skew the performance towards the season being played.

I've also played games with no recalc where players develop according to the development engine.

I guess my point is that the different settings all have their situations where they are desirable, but some people will never find a certain setting appealing. Anyone who wants to have their players' performances to most closely match a particular season probably will never want multiyear recalc, unless they have other factors that are more important to them.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by robc

Sorry...
I like the one that says "Output for league matches selected year."

That is the most subtle. I suppose it has the best chance for acceptance. My concern is it perhaps being too subtle.

Have less players with limited stats to calculate ratings from, smooth out performance extremes by incorporating more data, etc...

That's a good idea. I suggest more detail.

"Reduces extremes and smooths league and player output when pre-calc is used."

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by robc

For example, if you manage a game you have the option to Hit and Run. Well, to me the game should at least inform the player the factors that go into a successful hit and run. Using common sense I'd say someone with high contact and avoid K is good, and a high strikeout pitcher would make it more difficult.

The computer manager calls hit and run with high avoid K batters at the plate. It doesn't call it on high contact without high avoid K.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Brad K

The computer manager calls hit and run with high avoid K batters at the plate. It doesn't call it on high contact without high avoid K.

That is interesting to know. Thanks

[OutS|der]

I'm not reading through all this again. So I'll just say League totals are not set in stone. Auto-Cal or not, the game allows for outliers. Even then Auto-Cal changes every time it's run because all it is, is a 3 year sim of the game where it takes those totals and then uses modifiers to get them whatever current year totals are. So since the game allows for outliers, the results of a sim are not the same every time. Meaning running auto-cal a second time gives different modifiers.

Not sure where the confusion is.