Will there be ghost players in the minors?

[NCBeachBum]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Seems to me if you want to play a historical league with minors, then you're not really playing a historical league anymore because there is no database of minor league players.

If there was, it wouldn't be an issue. Heck, even if there was a database just for AAA level minor league players, that'd still be a great advance. But the prospects for a database of minor league players coming anywhere close to the Lahman database for major league players is a long way off.

There's also the question of how historical you'd want your minors to be. At times, the minors were vast, with a ton of leagues and teams. All of which changed somewhat frequently.

But since a historical minor league database would be an almost impossible task, the old system was as close as we could get. Personally, I'd love to see it (the full DB) happen. The idea of playing with the old independant minor leagues would be great. But I just can't imagine we'll ever see it.

Basically, due to all the different things that have been added that will detract from the ability to effectively sim historical leagues, I've pretty well come to the conclusion that PSU is right.... historical OOTP is a thing of the past. I hate to say it, and I'm still hoping I'll start seeing some things to change my mind... but as it stands right now, it appears I'll be sticking with v6.5. I merely dabble with fictional now and again. Historical baseball is my true love. And it does appear that with this version, Markus has pretty much made the decision to make the move towards a fictional-primary game.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not bitter, screaming for changes to suit the way I play, or damning Markus for the move. I'm just disappointed. Hell, something else will come along eventually to fill the void.

[Zitofan75]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

This games disrespects historical simmers enough as it is. This will just be another kick in the butt.

But no one is forced to buy this game, if historical simmers don't like it they should support products that more closely speak to their desires. The same is true of anyone and anything. For instance, I've heard DiamondMind baseball is the best for historical replay. I haven't bought it. Historical replay isn't what I'm interested in. Do I feel disrespected? No, it's what they've chosen to do. Nothing wrong with that, they have the right to focus on something and do it. We as consumers have to make the choice as to what we want to buy based on our means and our needs/desires. If a game company makes a game that is so far off the mark from consumer desire they'll be out of business after not too long; it's the logic of capitalism.

As for this, it's funny though. We're debating how this will be horrible for historic simmers but none of us have the game yet. Maybe it will be as bad as everyone dreads and maybe not. Maybe there will be ways to cope with it. Anyhow, 44 days from now or so we'll know the answer.

It's interesting that this "issue" has raised it's head now. I mean, it was clear to me this was coming ...

[f.montoya]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Oh no, I realize maybe there is 30-40 percent who are historical players, but Wat I'm saying is, even though that may be the case, I still think all those historical simmers still buy OOTP, even of they can't quite do what they want when it comes to their niche.

While certainly some will buy the new game, from a business standpoint, S.I., Marc and Markus can never assume "all". They must estimate low in order to create more realistic projections for sales and thereby be sure they are releasing a viable product. The decision to include or remove features is mostly sales driven. If they can increase revenue by adding another feature or option, it will be added provided the time and money involved in implementing it is within reason and makes business sense.

Again, as been stated before, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by NCBeachBum

Don't get me wrong... I'm not bitter, screaming for changes to suit the way I play, or damning Markus for the move. I'm just disappointed.

I agree. Very disappointed, in fact.

Originally Posted by NCBeachBum

Hell, something else will come along eventually to fill the void.

Don't hold your breath...

[Faroo6]

I wonder how hard it would be for Markus to setup a system that would assign random ratings to a real name database. It seems like a name only DB would be a lot easier to come up with and somehow used in conjunction with the Lahman DB would allow a real minors system without the massive project of coming up wiht minor league stats for players who never made it to the majors.

[Zitofan75]

Originally Posted by ragnaar15

I'm confused. Are ghost players the same thing as the randomly generated players in 6.5? Or are they invisible "filler" for W/L records that makes up the last two spots in the rotation if I only have 3 real prospects assigned, for example?

They're the filler.

[mcgsports]

Originally Posted by Killing Time

As often as I visit here I will be a Hall of Famer just in time for OOTP 2012.

You realize that means you need to retire From the forums in 2007
So that you have
Five years of eligibility

[Qrusher14242]

I hope we see a blog soon on creating and running a historical league. Would be helpful to see how to do it in the version.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Faroo6

I wonder how hard it would be for Markus to setup a system that would assign random ratings to a real name database. It seems like a name only DB would be a lot easier to come up with and somehow used in conjunction with the Lahman DB would allow a real minors system without the massive project of coming up wiht minor league stats for players who never made it to the majors.

yeah that might be easier. Although if a minor leaguer did make it to the big leagues even though he didnt in real life i wouldnt mind because its a historical what if situation. If the minor leaguer had different circumstances, he might have been an average or even start player in the big leagues. My concern would be how it would effect totals overall.

[f.montoya]

What we don't want in our historical leagues is Mr. Bob Fiction getting promoted, taking playing time away from real players. Then Mr. Bob Fiction hits 500 homers and gets inducted into the Hall of Fame.

[Faroo6]

What if we could set modifiers to rookies created outside the database. You import all your rookies and then the game creates fictional players to fill your minors for the first year. If the game allowed you to set a level for the fictional players created that would eliminate the problem of Joe Blow taking Mantle's spot on the roster.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by f.montoya

What we don't want in our historical leagues is Mr. Bob Fiction getting promoted, taking playing time away from real players. Then Mr. Bob Fiction hits 500 homers and gets inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Yeah thats not what i want to see either except in maybe some rare cases.
I am leaning towards a creating clones of rookies for each one that debuts in a year. I was thinking to reduce their stats by a small pctg but i dont know if that would mess things up too much. If we create exact clones then you run the risk of having 4 Babe Ruths in the league. If we create fictional players then we have the risk of having Mr. Bob Fictional taking over the league. I wish there was a database of real minor leaguers but i dont knoew if the stats are even available. Plus what we would consider minor leagues today would not be the same thing in say the 1920's.
Anyways if we allow Negro League players in the database i dont know if fictional or clone players would be too bad. I am not debating the issue of the abilities of Negro Leaguers but their sats are somewhat fictional no matyter how close we can estimate them. Yes they didnt get a chance to playe but we simply dont know for sure how many home runs Gibson hit so we have to make an educated guess. Could we not do the same thing in creating clones or fictional players based on historical league totals.
But at the same time i dont want to see minor league talent and skills on the same level as the league level above it.

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

Importing players from the straight Lahman database is unrealistic anyway because you basically have to play those guys the year they debuted IRL or later. If you have a gaping hole in left field and you're controlling the 1930 Phillies, sorry but you're not getting Buzz Arlett until next year. That's an extreme example, but for all those cases where you might want to play someone a year later than what's realistic, there are by definition going to be as many as when you'd want to bring in a guy a year early.

Honestly, I just don't understand why people play this game with fictional players. People, Diamond Mind is *way* better at this sort of thing. I'm not saying this to drive away business, but it's true. As has been said elsewhere, OOTP is a holistic, career-level baseball simulator. It doesn't get individual seasons anywhere near as "right" as DMB or Strat-o-Matic or The Internet Game or Replay Baseball get them. It's not designed to. If you want to fit the squarish peg of historical gaming into the roundish hole of OOTP, that's cool. Just don't be surprised if you have to make some compromises (and get extra features that you don't get from DMB, such as the fog of war and realistic performances by little-used players when they come in off the bench to fill in).

[Qrusher14242]

Well, its just that the ghost players worked fine in v6 and we werent expecting a step back from that.

[Jestor]

Originally Posted by Zitofan75

But no one is forced to buy this game, if historical simmers don't like it they should support products that more closely speak to their desires. The same is true of anyone and anything. For instance, I've heard DiamondMind baseball is the best for historical replay. I haven't bought it. Historical replay isn't what I'm interested in. Do I feel disrespected? No, it's what they've chosen to do. Nothing wrong with that, they have the right to focus on something and do it. We as consumers have to make the choice as to what we want to buy based on our means and our needs/desires. If a game company makes a game that is so far off the mark from consumer desire they'll be out of business after not too long; it's the logic of capitalism.

As for this, it's funny though. We're debating how this will be horrible for historic simmers but none of us have the game yet. Maybe it will be as bad as everyone dreads and maybe not. Maybe there will be ways to cope with it. Anyhow, 44 days from now or so we'll know the answer.

It's interesting that this "issue" has raised it's head now. I mean, it was clear to me this was coming ...

Sorry man, but you're not getting it. Historical replay is not the same as historical simming. Two entirely different things. DMB doesn't fill the historical simming void at all. There's no career progression.

While I tend to prefer fictional leagues the most myself in terms of dynasty creation, I also like doing historical sims. This was possible in OOTP 6.5 and ghost players were a valuable role in that.

Subtract the ghost players and you now have a barrier to historical simming.

FWIW, I'm also concerned from a fictional standpoint. I prefer to start with 25 round draft in the fictional leagues and gradually phase in players to the minor via a 7 round draft each other. That way, when the minors fill up, I have a rough idea of when to expand.

This setup to me sounds too much like pressing Auto-Fill Minors option, which I've never used and never wanted to use.

[f.montoya]

Originally Posted by Gorilla Shakespeare

Importing players from the straight Lahman database is unrealistic anyway because you basically have to play those guys the year they debuted IRL or later. If you have a gaping hole in left field and you're controlling the 1930 Phillies, sorry but you're not getting Buzz Arlett until next year. That's an extreme example, but for all those cases where you might want to play someone a year later than what's realistic, there are by definition going to be as many as when you'd want to bring in a guy a year early.

Honestly, I just don't understand why people play this game with fictional players. People, Diamond Mind is *way* better at this sort of thing. I'm not saying this to drive away business, but it's true. As has been said elsewhere, OOTP is a holistic, career-level baseball simulator. It doesn't get individual seasons anywhere near as "right" as DMB or Strat-o-Matic or The Internet Game or Replay Baseball get them. It's not designed to. If you want to fit the squarish peg of historical gaming into the roundish hole of OOTP, that's cool. Just don't be surprised if you have to make some compromises (and get extra features that you don't get from DMB, such as the fog of war and realistic performances by little-used players when they come in off the bench to fill in).

Gorilla's post here is exactly what I'm talking about. Need I say more? Sadly, historical simmers, who have loved OOTP in the past, may actually have to take his advice.

[f.montoya]

Originally Posted by Jestor

Sorry man, but you're not getting it. Historical replay is not the same as historical simming. Two entirely different things. DMB doesn't fill the historical simming void at all. There's no career progression.

Exactly. And historical simming doesn't mean re-creating the same stats. The whole idea of playing with historical leagues is to create a whole new history with historical players with the "unknown" factors that OOTP has the ability to give us, like a career ending injury to Ty Cobb or a Mario Mendoza that hits .300 because he got a chance to work with a Legendary hitting coach for 5 years.

[BigCity]

I think the discussion is missing some things.

1. About lost sales, you have to realize that the "current" list of OOTP historical simmers are the ones that know and understand Ghost players. All the new customers will love the game for what it is - not having played the older versions - thus not knowing about ghost players.

2. We all knew, going in, and in fact were part of the group that was "demanding" changes, that things would change in a total re-write. We knew the limitations of the database, there were some of us that ASKED for the elimination of ghost players - to be replaced with real players. Granted, some of us didn't understand the ramifications of each change we asked for - but we did know that things were going to change.

3. That said, I suspect Markus will consider trying to add ghost players in as an option - but certainly not for this version. If he can figure out how to replicate that option in the new code, I'm sure he will try.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by f.montoya

Gorilla's post here is exactly what I'm talking about. Need I say more? Sadly, historical simmers, who have loved OOTP in the past, may actually have to take his advice.

I'm miles ahead of his advice, as I've been playing Diamond Mind since it was Pursue the Pennant. That doesn't change the fact that this OOTP is the best career-based baseball sim, and that those of us who primarily enjoy historical seasons do expect the game to always support semi-historical simulation.

If Markus screws historical simmers to the wall with OOTP2006, and I hope he's smarter and has better market sense than that, he may well be granting Puresim the niche it needs to be effective competition.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Jestor

Sorry man, but you're not getting it. Historical replay is not the same as historical simming. Two entirely different things. DMB doesn't fill the historical simming void at all. There's no career progression.

While I tend to prefer fictional leagues the most myself in terms of dynasty creation, I also like doing historical sims. This was possible in OOTP 6.5 and ghost players were a valuable role in that.

Subtract the ghost players and you now have a barrier to historical simming.

FWIW, I'm also concerned from a fictional standpoint. I prefer to start with 25 round draft in the fictional leagues and gradually phase in players to the minor via a 7 round draft each other. That way, when the minors fill up, I have a rough idea of when to expand.

This setup to me sounds too much like pressing Auto-Fill Minors option, which I've never used and never wanted to use.

That a very accurate summation of the situation. Well done.