I just can't win in the playoffs

[injury log]

If, in cork55's case, only four teams are making the playoffs, then he should expect to win 3.5 (or more, since he had the league's best team) championships over 14 years. Winning only two is not, statistically speaking, unreasonable, but it does mean he's seen some bad luck. I agree with darkcloud, in that I am happy that winning in the playoffs is not easy (it was too easy in OOTP 2006). I'm also reluctant to believe that the game is coded in such a way that good teams would be penalized in the playoffs. Still, despite my own experience with the game, which has always seemed realistic, many seem to be claiming that the game is biased against human teams in playoff scenarios, and if this is indeed the case, I agree that the game should be changed so that all teams are on equal footing.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Cork55

What bothers me the most is that my key starters suddenly stop being aces and get pounded. My teams offense also dips as the opposing 2 star pitchers suddenly become Cy Young.

I wonder if the game resets something after the regular season ends that introduces the chance for a lot more variation in player performance. This would be akin to how players perform at the start of spring training.

Originally Posted by Cork55

The thing that I really notice in the playoffs is how many opposing average pitchers seem to be come 5 star aces and how fast my 4 star pitchers start looking like 1 star duds.

As others have said many times in this thread, something just feels "off". To me it seems like the players are getting reset to the beginning of the year and that their season performances are forgotten. This might explain how great teams suddenly come up flat while lesser teams come up huge time and time again.

Originally Posted by Cork55

Since the game does not differentiate between regular season games and post season games, there should be a reason why certain players repeatedly compile excellent regular seasons year after year, but suddenly get hammered in the playoffs year after year. Why are these players not getting hammered a lot during the regular season?

It's almost like clockwork with my team now. I could go 110-52 and dominate every statistic in the league and once the playoffs start, suddenly my team starts playing completely different against the same teams they dominated during the regular season. I could understand this a bit more if the game differentiated regular season and post season, but for a game that takes place 2 days after the regular season ends, it does not make sense. It's like the game wipes all player performance and goes into spring training mode where you always see good players perform badly because they are rusty.

Cork, I am repeating these statements of yours in order to lend my support to them. Well said, and very descriptive of my own experiences and impressions. Frankly, I am hoping for some mention of an adjustment for this in the final patch changelist.

Originally Posted by injury log

I agree that the game should be changed so that all teams are on equal footing.

I'm not sure if this is correct. While every team in the playoffs should have a chance to win it all, the dominant team(s) should win most of the time. There should not be artificial parity introduced in the playoffs to create an equal footing that should not exist. I hope that is not the case.*

*EDIT: The more I think of it, the more I believe this is the case. If season-long trends are allowed to continue into the playoffs, then the dominant team(s) continue their domination and win it all too often to be exciting. Why? Because a computer cannot simulate a wild-card team heating up if it continues for up to 19 playoff games (MLB format) the patterns that caused the wild card team to be inferior to the front runners during the season. No, I suspect that Cork is right and something is reset in the playoffs to create an artificially level playing field.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I'm not sure if this is correct. While every team in the playoffs should have a chance to win it all, the dominant team(s) should win most of the time. There should not be artificial parity introduced in the playoffs to create an equal footing that should not exist. I hope that is not the case.

I think I could have been more precise with my language- I do think the dominant teams should win 'more of the time' (though perhaps not 'most of the time'). By 'equal footing', I do not mean some artificial parity among all playoff teams- I merely mean that each team should play according to its player ratings, with no disadvantage accorded to human teams merely because they're human. I'm not yet convinced human teams are at a disadvantage, but if they are, they shouldn't be.

So, I believe we agree!

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by injury log

So, I believe we agree!

Yes, we do.

The question is, does MH agree? This thread has been going on for almost two months. At this point, I would welcome one of his laconic one-liners, such as "Yes, that is the way it [artificial parity] works, and that's the way it's going to stay. "

He never forgets the smilie.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cork55

I could go 110-52 and dominate every statistic in the league and once the playoffs start, suddenly my team starts playing completely different against the same teams they dominated during the regular season.

But consider the playoffs are short affairs, likely either best-of-5 or best-of-7 depending on the series length you are using. The aggregate won-loss record and team and player statistics don't mean much when you're talking about series that involve no more than 5 or 7 games. It only takes 3 or 4 mediocre performances and you've lost the series.

Take a look at your team from during the regular season. Pick at random a stretch of 5 or 7 consecutive games then take a look at the individual and team numbers. Is there still the same domination in performance that you see in the number from the whole at the end of the season, or do you see more variance?

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

But consider the playoffs are short affairs, likely either best-of-5 or best-of-7 depending on the series length you are using. The aggregate won-loss record and team and player statistics don't mean much when you're talking about series that involve no more than 5 or 7 games. It only takes 3 or 4 mediocre performances and you've lost the series.

Take a look at your team from during the regular season. Pick at random a stretch of 5 or 7 consecutive games then take a look at the individual and team numbers. Is there still the same domination in performance that you see in the number from the whole at the end of the season, or do you see more variance?

I think if you look at the Red Sox this season, they've got a 90-61 record so far but the longest winning streak is 5 and the longest losing streak is 5, so the good record doesn't necessarily mean you get the right 3 results out of 5 or 4 out of 7.

[Cork55]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

But consider the playoffs are short affairs, likely either best-of-5 or best-of-7 depending on the series length you are using. The aggregate won-loss record and team and player statistics don't mean much when you're talking about series that involve no more than 5 or 7 games. It only takes 3 or 4 mediocre performances and you've lost the series.

Take a look at your team from during the regular season. Pick at random a stretch of 5 or 7 consecutive games then take a look at the individual and team numbers. Is there still the same domination in performance that you see in the number from the whole at the end of the season, or do you see more variance?

It goes way way beyong simply winning and losing. A team can play great and lose 2-1. That will never draw complaints because sometimes you play great and the other team was a bit better. What I am talking about is a complete reversal of how my teams have peerformed over the couse of the season.

For example, in the last season I just completed, my team finished 113-49 and was the top team in the league. Going into the playoffs my top 2 starter were the no. 2 and no. 3 starters in the league and the top 2 in the playoffs. They were 18-6, 3.09 and 20-4, 2.92 respectively. I went back and reviewed each pitchers game by game performances and they were very consistent during the season.

Now the first round starts and my team is facing a pitcher who was 15-12 with a 4.12 ERA. My starter gives up 7 runs (in 2 innings)
on 5 hits and 2 walks including a grand slam with 2 outs. I go on to lose the game 11-2. The other pitcher cruises going 8 innings allowing just 3 hits and 1 run. This was at my home park where my team was 61-20.

Game 2 saw my 20 game winner who was also steady as a rock all season promptly give up 6 runs in 2.2 innings on 9 hits and 4 walks. I also lose this game 10-3. The 2 star opposing pitcher tosses a no hitter for 6 innings against me.

I don't mind getting beat, but the HUGE performance swings that suddenly start when the playoffs start are sucking the fun out of the game. I should also mention that in the 14 years my team has made the playoffs, they have been the top team 12 times. In those 12 times, they have been knocked out in the first round 8 times. Their home record in those series is horrible despite having awesome home records during the regular season. It's like the game forgets that my team is good at home.

I am not going to bash OOTP because I really like the game, but having played these types of games for 30 years now, I can safely say that I don't recall seeing these wild swings in APBA or DMB which are the other 2 games that I have also played over the years.

-Cork55

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cork55

For example, in the last season I just completed, my team finished 113-49 and was the top team in the league.

Okay, but how was that record accomplished? What was the schedule like? Was it a divisionally weighted schedule and your club was in a division with weak opponents? If so, that'll pad your record quite nicely.

Again, take a look at your regular season record from that club and pick out at random several different 5 or 7 consecutive game stretches and then analyze the individual and team numbers from them. How do they compare to the season totals? Are they as dominant or do they show more variance?

Originally Posted by Cork55

Game 2 saw my 20 game winner who was also steady as a rock all season promptly give up 6 runs in 2.2 innings on 9 hits and 4 walks. I also lose this game 10-3. The 2 star opposing pitcher tosses a no hitter for 6 innings against me.

Personally, if you asked me, I'd say he was due for a bad performance at some point; he can't pitch brilliantly in every game. It's just that he didn't falter until the playoffs, instead of encountering some bad games during the regular season.

What about those six losses you're two top starters had? What were those like?

[Cork55]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Okay, but how was that record accomplished? What was the schedule like? Was it a divisionally weighted schedule and your club was in a division with weak opponents? If so, that'll pad your record quite nicely.

Again, take a look at your regular season record from that club and pick out at random several different 5 or 7 consecutive game stretches and then analyze the individual and team numbers from them. How do they compare to the season totals? Are they as dominant or do they show more variance?

Personally, if you asked me, I'd say he was due for a bad performance at some point; he can't pitch brilliantly in every game. It's just that he didn't falter until the playoffs, instead of encountering some bad games during the regular season.

What about those six losses you're two top starters had? What were those like?

I agree with you about players being due for bad performances from time to time, but this happens like clockwork every single season at the exact same time which coincides with the start of the playoffs.

I think you are missing my point. I am fine with getting beat, but the manner with which I am getting beat is very inconsistent with my teams performance. A team that is dominant over the course of 162 games and almost unbeatable at home should not get crushed every single season at home during the playoffs. EVERY SINGLE TIME. I am not talking about this happening once in a blue moon which would be fine and serve to show that upsets can and do happen, I am talking about how this occurs with the timing of a fine swiss watch.

The timing of this is what is bothering me the most, not the fact that I get beat. I went back and compiled my teams home winning pct for 14 seasons and they have compiled a 0.689 home winning pct. Over the course of 14 seasons, my team has compiled a stellar 0.357 home winning pct during the playoffs when they were the top team 12 times. These numbers simply do not add up.

Sudden horrid player performances that occur precisely at the same point of the season year after year after year is more than just being due for a bad swing. Teams that win 113 games do not have many bad stretches and even if they do, they did not occur at home and by lopsided margins all the time.

I am going to try to run the league on auto pilot and see what happens for a few seasons.

-Cork55

[darkcloud4579]

I think the real life performance of Wild Card teams since 1995 prove the point that the playoffs are intentionally unpredictable.

[Cork55]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

I think the real life performance of Wild Card teams since 1995 prove the point that the playoffs are intentionally unpredictable.

That is true in real life, but where OOTP is concerned it really depends on how Markus has things set up. If he has added "unpredictability" to the simulation, that is fine, but it would be nice to "officially" know this so one can better handle the results that will stem from this. If not, then something else could be off and that should be investigated.

-Cork55

[tysok]

I haven't seen anything to make me wonder. I've seen a lot of players underperform in the playoffs, and players overperform in the playoffs.

In 2032 my team was by far the most dominant there was, only team to win over 100, and I won 133 games. My ace, O'Halligan, won 31 games that season (starting 35) and lost 1 with a 1.52 ERA. In fact, my other starters were 16-5, 16-6, 18-6, and 16-5 that year. They destroyed everything that came on the field.

I did some fancy footwork to make sure O'Halligan would start game one of the divisional series... he won it easily with a shutout. I went on to sweep the divisional series and went on to fact Chicago who I beat out in the Central division by over 30 games. O'Halligan started the game, and lost it 5-0. Borunda started game 2, and lost 10-2. Alfronso started game 3 in Chicago and lost 7-1. O'Halligan came on for game 4 and lost 10-3.

In 2033 I "only" win 113 games. We struggle through the division series and go on to sweep the league championship and World series. O'Halligan wins 23 games that season, but the next closest starter won 15. The star of the postseason was Lagumbay, who went 4-0 in the playoffs with a 1.2 ERA after going 12-8 on the regular season with a 4.8 ERA.

Beechey and Regaldo were some of the most dominating players to ever play the OF for me, ending their careers with over 600 HRs each, over 3500 hits each, and both ended with over .330 averages for their career. Their totals in the playoffs are junk, neither hit over .250 and only 5 HRs combined in the postseason... both of them played in every postseason from 2007 to 2026 and got 8 WS rings in that time.

In 37 seasons played I've gone 4341-1653, .724 win percent. I've "only" won 17 WS titles. For 36 years I've been the most dominating team in baseball (didn't make the playoffs in the inaugral season), and I had a 6 year stretch where I couldn't get past the first round, 8 years of missing the WS.

[Cork55]

I'm experiencing the exact opposite as you Tysok.

One thing I should do is to make a new league from scratch and test it since my current league dates all the way back to the beta testing builds. Perhaps something has gotten corrupted due to all the new builds and patches.

-Cork55

[1998 Yankees]

Keep battling, Cork55!

[Cork55]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Keep battling, Cork55!

I have said my piece about this, but there is very little that can happen without some clarification from Markus about what happens and what does not. Until then I will continue to play the game and record my observations.

-Cork55

[RchW]

I'm waffling on this issue since I posted about 3 weeks ago. I no longer see the bizarre results so aptly written up by Cork55 in his earlier post. It was so predictable before, you could almost guess the scores.

Since then, I've won a few playoff series coming from behind (never happened before, if I got behind I was toast). Also lost a WS to a wild card team in the 7th game at home. I found this totally realistic as they were young and improving all through the season. In general, with a slightly less dominant team I win sometimes and when I lose it is in the League Championship or WS not a first round sweep.

It certainly looks like a small change has been made but it's only one opinion.

I run v2.0.3.57 for this particular league. If any tweaks have been made, people with different versions may get different results.

[Cork55]

Originally Posted by RchW

I'm waffling on this issue since I posted about 3 weeks ago. I no longer see the bizarre results so aptly written up by Cork55 in his earlier post. It was so predictable before, you could almost guess the scores.

Since then, I've won a few playoff series coming from behind (never happened before, if I got behind I was toast). Also lost a WS to a wild card team in the 7th game at home. I found this totally realistic as they were young and improving all through the season. In general, with a slightly less dominant team I win sometimes and when I lose it is in the League Championship or WS not a first round sweep.

It certainly looks like a small change has been made but it's only one opinion.

I run v2.0.3.57 for this particular league. If any tweaks have been made, people with different versions may get different results.

You may have stumbled onto something here RchW. When you had good teams, you said you could not win much, but when you have "slightly less dominant" teams, you are suddenly winning. This holds true to what I have been seeing where the worse teams seem to perform better than the good teams more than they should.

-Cork55

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cork55

You may have stumbled onto something here RchW. When you had good teams, you said you could not win much, but when you have "slightly less dominant" teams, you are suddenly winning. This holds true to what I have been seeing where the worse teams seem to perform better than the good teams more than they should.

-Cork55

I should have been more specific. Instead of winning 115-122 games we now win 102-105.


Previously I documented that turning morale off resulted in some consecutive WS wins (going 12-1 to 12-4), while with it on I never won two in a row. Since we moved into the later patches I have won two in a row and also lost in the WS (something that never happened earlier). The first round wipe outs you described are gone.

Like I said, there was a pattern. Now it seems to have changed for the better. Some people have correctly pointed out that these results could be biased by small sample sizes. I intend to study this more with multiple solo leagues, but have not yet had the time.

Your observations match mine from several builds ago (which build are you on?). Currently I feel that morale volume is turned down enough to create realistic variations in the playoffs.

[Cork55]

I believe I am on build 62.

-Cork55

[highandoutside]

Interesting tidbit from the real world about the play-off fate of dominant regular season teams...quote at the very end of the article.


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...t&lid=tab2pos1

It’s official: ................Over the last 12 seasons, 18 teams have won 100 or more games. Only one, the 1998 Yankees, went on to win the World Series.