Crazy Bad Performances

[usa_hank]

Originally Posted by usa_hank

Yep. I've got a LD/HD caliber roster playing in HG because of 4 seasons of bad rolls (and I've been improving the team every season with better and better cards). Sitting here with an 8-15 record, playing teams with rosters that are -30 in every rating in almost every position compared to mine. Love these rolls, e.g. Oscar Charleston already has 2 errors in CF, which is more than he had the last 2 seasons for me.

At least Sutcliffe is pitching a 3.06 ERA this season in 5 starts. Must've gotten a good 'seasonal modifier' roll for him. However, Ben Sheets has gotten the "choke" season modifier as he's sporting a lovely 7.40 ERA right now after 5 starts, and all of his starts have been against teams that are probably going to get relegated from HG to LG by looking at their lineups. Love it.

At least in Yahtzee I can reroll 2 times per round.

Spoke too soon. Sutcliffe's ERA is now over 5 after the last 4 starts

Gotta love this: I'm starting Dave Parker, Charleston, Lajoie, Thames, Ripken, Pudge, Yount, JD Mart, Gwynn/Judge, etc. (swapping a few out vsR/vsL), and I'm 29th in offense! Playing in HG. Stashed Junior after he was only hitting .111 in 10 starts. I don't think it can get much worse than this.

[dishnet34]

Originally Posted by bailey

Ripley famously said: "Believe it, or not".

I will believe it when you provide the exact post where Markus said as such, as well as the context surrounding said post.

I'm someone who deals in facts and evidence for a living; burden of proof is on you, my man. Until then, what you've said can be generously described as a conspiracy theory (which, well, is what the vast majority of this thread, in a way, has been)

[usa_hank]

Originally Posted by dishnet34

I will believe it when you provide the exact post where Markus said as such, as well as the context surrounding said post.

I'm someone who deals in facts and evidence for a living; burden of proof is on you, my man. Until then, what you've said can be generously described as a conspiracy theory (which, well, is what the vast majority of this thread, in a way, has been)

Pretty simple answer for this - the devs look at these forums. They could answer the question of whether there is a single or multiple hidden attributes that randomly varies performance in season to season (or over chunks of a season) for each player on each team. Or perhaps the first couple of games have a greater influence on the seasonal performance per player? It's not some secret sauce they would be exposing here.

In fact, you can call it conspiracy theory or not, but the fact that they haven't chimed in already tells me it's more than likely true. They could have easily debunked this by saying "nope" and that is that, and it immediately shuts down this conversation. I see them chime in on ephemeral subjects about mission names and other pointless details. But this forum, left untouched.

Of course, they don't have to chime in at all. That's their prerogative. Sometimes a lack of response is quietly a big response. You'd think if it wasn't true they'd try to quell that kind of discussion pretty quickly, as it kind of affects player opinions when a bunch of people are pointing at it and providing performance evidence of it. I certainly can point you to at least 30-40 player-seasons of performance from individual players on my team that shows something affected that player's performance which caused it to vary significantly year to year.

In statistics, outliers don't happen at that rate, and if they do something is wrong with the data or the sampling - which would point to the way the simulation is working. Hence, problem with the sim, not a good look. But if it's an intentional insertion of performance- and period-based random factor, that changes everything.

I'll have to consider a better way to analyze the data and find the right questions to ask. I think I'll start saving off the stats for every player on my team and every "same" player on other teams year to year, to start a true statistical analysis of this. I'm a nerd, I enjoy mathematical analysis of data. Heck, AI is a wonderful tool and could easily help here.

[Matt Arnold]

nope

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by usa_hank

Pretty simple answer for this - the devs look at these forums. They could answer the question of whether there is a single or multiple hidden attributes that randomly varies performance in season to season (or over chunks of a season) for each player on each team. Or perhaps the first couple of games have a greater influence on the seasonal performance per player? It's not some secret sauce they would be exposing here.

In fact, you can call it conspiracy theory or not, but the fact that they haven't chimed in already tells me it's more than likely true. They could have easily debunked this by saying "nope" and that is that, and it immediately shuts down this conversation. I see them chime in on ephemeral subjects about mission names and other pointless details. But this forum, left untouched.

Of course, they don't have to chime in at all. That's their prerogative. Sometimes a lack of response is quietly a big response. You'd think if it wasn't true they'd try to quell that kind of discussion pretty quickly, as it kind of affects player opinions when a bunch of people are pointing at it and providing performance evidence of it. I certainly can point you to at least 30-40 player-seasons of performance from individual players on my team that shows something affected that player's performance which caused it to vary significantly year to year.

In statistics, outliers don't happen at that rate, and if they do something is wrong with the data or the sampling - which would point to the way the simulation is working. Hence, problem with the sim, not a good look. But if it's an intentional insertion of performance- and period-based random factor, that changes everything.

I'll have to consider a better way to analyze the data and find the right questions to ask. I think I'll start saving off the stats for every player on my team and every "same" player on other teams year to year, to start a true statistical analysis of this. I'm a nerd, I enjoy mathematical analysis of data. Heck, AI is a wonderful tool and could easily help here.

I'm a statistician: nothing about the things look wrong. You might disagree with how the distributions work, but there's nothing to lead me to believe that there's something unintended happening. It's entirely a sample size issue.

I think largely you just don't understand how normalization and league totals work, and how in small sample sizes (which are still thousands of PAs, especially with all the different confounding variables happening from game to game) you'll see a lot of difference. League would be far less fun if things were more consistent, and people would be complaining about always losing to the best players if that was the case

[Hawkwing7423]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

nope

Does that go for the injuries concept posted by bailey as well?

[bailey]

Originally Posted by Hawkwing7423

Does that go for the injuries concept posted by bailey as well?

To be fair, my comment about injuries was from an online league I played in 2009 called FOOL (if anyone remembers that) and that league forum has been deleted.

[usa_hank]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

I'm a statistician: nothing about the things look wrong. You might disagree with how the distributions work, but there's nothing to lead me to believe that there's something unintended happening. It's entirely a sample size issue.

I think largely you just don't understand how normalization and league totals work, and how in small sample sizes (which are still thousands of PAs, especially with all the different confounding variables happening from game to game) you'll see a lot of difference. League would be far less fun if things were more consistent, and people would be complaining about always losing to the best players if that was the case

Great comment! Love it! The triple internet fallacy - claim of expertise, and appeal to authority and understanding that nobody could have, and finally the "you don't understand" fallacy. Appreciate you!

But I do want to say thank you to Matt Arnold for answering the call. Appreciate it, now we can just loathe our bad luck and not try to appeal to something hidden away.

[zevus]

Originally Posted by usa_hank

As an aside, any reason why you're not opening those packs? Saving them for late game? Or just annoyed at the game and not going to bother?

Originally Posted by usa_hank

Also, that pic of your unopened packs, PP, and CS makes me realize I will never compete in HD and Perfect. It's like having a billionaire walk by and smile and say "hey you can get here too" when I'm already in my mid 40s. :P

Didn't check board in many weeks so just getting to this now! Thought I was going to quit Perfect Team portion of game which lasted a couple of weeks. Giving up wasting time on the tournaments & just doing weekly drafts is keeping things entertaining enough. I play a lot of the single player game so not too difficult to mess with a few drafts etc.

Reasons for not opening the packs? 'cause I wouldn't be able to compete either! Not much worth boasting about if you "win" by throwing the most money at the game, right? Wouldn't it be fantastic to do it without spending a dime outside of the base price? Probably not as fantastic as I imagine, but that's what I tell myself and by remaining an active player, I give the whales cause to spend their money. An amazing symbiosis. Everyone wins!!1

... the only way to have a chance would be to save the vast majority of this stuff up until next year, but I do still need to have a decent starting position (high gold or low diamond) so it requires a bit of maintenance. Probably would want to start around two months before next iteration? I dunno, I give it 50/50 odds that I still care enough in January? All this talk, though ... I am starting to warm to this plan. very cheeky!

I'll attach a status update! I spent some points recently to get my team back up to the HG/LD bounce area .. but if things remain as they are now, esp with these new lamer variant clubhouse cards, ultimately these clubhouse points will be far more important than the perfect points. Presumably you'll have some clubhouse cards that are best, and some non-clubhouse cards that are best .. Probably nobody will buy the "best" in position clubhouse variants and sell them for perfect points (unless there is some $$ transaction going on *outside* of the game) so if you don't have enough clubhouse points at the very end you are SOL.

(& some missions like "Kid" or "Immortal Relievers" (this latter one is beyond awful in setup), I've had bids up so many times, but I tend to get +1'ed on minutes afterwards .. someone must be making a lot flipping those over and over ... hopefully it's while "multitasking" at work or such )

[LeeD]

If you're going to do this then sell everything that isn't locked now. It's worth more now than it will be worth in January.

[Torgonius]

If by 'next year', you mean PT27, nothing carries over.

[zevus]

Originally Posted by Torgonius

If by 'next year', you mean PT27, nothing carries over.

That's why January and not March.

re; card value, yeah, there are some PTCS cards I should have probably sold (looking in inv now, luis gonzalez would be the one worth the most), but I'll admit I have some attachment to them since they were won in one of the few things that could pass as a "skill based" tourney in this game, re; ranking high enough on weekly drafts, then getting a high enough position on a draft championship tourney. yeah, still nearly all luck and it's mixed in there with the variant heavy non-draft tourneys but hey.

Another excuse is that I suppose there's some remote possibility some uber mission might be added near the end of the cycle that uses them.

[Hawkwing7423]

So happy to get Sandy Koufax finally.

He's crushing it at 3-5 4.69 ERA and projected WAR of 1.0. Stunning and amazing.

My team's defense in HG is right in the middle, so it's not defense.

I don't know what else to call it but blind luck.

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by Hawkwing7423

So happy to get Sandy Koufax finally.

He's crushing it at 3-5 4.69 ERA and projected WAR of 1.0. Stunning and amazing.

My team's defense in HG is right in the middle, so it's not defense.

I don't know what else to call it but blind luck.

Koufax is an extreme fly ball pitcher, so he's going to underperform his HRA. a recent discovery by the community, definitely something to watch out for

[LeeD]

Dazzy has the same problem, which is when I (re-)noticed the problems with flyball pitchers. It shouldn't be as extreme as it is given that it's a 60-40 issue, with the vast majority of pitchers landing between 45 and 55% ground balls. There is a way to reduce Dazzy's HR/9 from unacceptable 1.7 to acceptable 1.1 or 1.2 if you tweak the sliders.

[Sinnerman]

Originally Posted by cwhitman

I'm a statistician: nothing about the things look wrong. You might disagree with how the distributions work, but there's nothing to lead me to believe that there's something unintended happening. It's entirely a sample size issue.

I think largely you just don't understand how normalization and league totals work, and how in small sample sizes (which are still thousands of PAs, especially with all the different confounding variables happening from game to game) you'll see a lot of difference. League would be far less fun if things were more consistent, and people would be complaining about always losing to the best players if that was the case

The variance in player performance in Perfect Team are wildly unrealistic, although I get why. Can't have 20+ Honus Wagners in the league all doing roughly the same thing year after year in this format. Importantly, player performance is dependent on the normalization
of league statistics.

I get the feeling the normalization of the yearly statistics is having an effect most don't realize. Normalization will cast a shadow over every at bat, offensively and defensively (or at least after all star break as some have theorized heh). Certainly the devs have given reasons for implementing this in the past, at least regarding the base game. If anyone knows what the testing determined I'd be grateful to be informed.

Anecdotally, for some years (real life years) now my single player fictional leagues always have normalization turned off and it doesn't seem like anything ridiculous is going on. There do seem to be more outliers in individual player performance, although I'm not 100% certain.

PS: I'd love to have a one season trial in PT where normalization was removed. The possible insanity would be too good to miss (what happens regarding a player with a 170+ stat?) , although in most cases it would probably be mundane. Don't know if you don't try though...

[Sinnerman]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Dazzy has the same problem, which is when I (re-)noticed the problems with flyball pitchers. It shouldn't be as extreme as it is given that it's a 60-40 issue, with the vast majority of pitchers landing between 45 and 55% ground balls. There is a way to reduce Dazzy's HR/9 from unacceptable 1.7 to acceptable 1.1 or 1.2 if you tweak the sliders.

What sliders in particular, pitch around? Anyhow I've leaned this the hard way with Eckersley.... 10 HR in 42.2 innings OUCH. Teach me your ways and help me mitigate this ongoing disaster.

[cwhitman]

Originally Posted by Sinnerman

The variance in player performance in Perfect Team are wildly unrealistic, although I get why. Can't have 20+ Honus Wagners in the league all doing roughly the same thing year after year in this format. Importantly, player performance is dependent on the normalization
of league statistics.

I get the feeling the normalization of the yearly statistics is having an effect most don't realize. Normalization will cast a shadow over every at bat, offensively and defensively (or at least after all star break as some have theorized heh). Certainly the devs have given reasons for implementing this in the past, at least regarding the base game. If anyone knows what the testing determined I'd be grateful to be informed.

Anecdotally, for some years (real life years) now my single player fictional leagues always have normalization turned off and it doesn't seem like anything ridiculous is going on. There do seem to be more outliers in individual player performance, although I'm not 100% certain.

PS: I'd love to have a one season trial in PT where normalization was removed. The possible insanity would be too good to miss (what happens regarding a player with a 170+ stat?) , although in most cases it would probably be mundane. Don't know if you don't try though...

they're realistic statistically. they're not realistic in terms of real life baseball. but this game isn't real life baseball.


the normalization removed is just what happens when you look at the weekly open tournament.