A little OOTP 11 update...

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

We got two conversations going at once in this thread, so I will just answer this and duck out.

I dunno. I don't want to spoil anybody's fun by saying what I do about historical play. I think it may be that I need to reinforce my own feelings about it and my love for fictional play that I post comments about both from time to time. I certainly don't want to spoil anybody's fun.

Yet, this: How can it be fulfilling to set up historical play and either sim it out to see how close it comes to reality, or play it out to see if either it comes close to reality, or is changed, by one's intervention? In either case, it seems to me that such people set themselves up for disappointment because some randomness is built in to this game by necessity. Besides, hit reality on the head, boring; end up far from the mark, frustrating. Where is the fun?

'Nuff said. Apologies. Have fun, you guys, seriously!

I'm not sure if you think I was talking about me playing historical, or just reinforcing what I already pretty much said about historical not being very fun at all.

Even though I fire up a game starting in the year 2002, and have the previous stats and so forth, I really don't consider this to be a "historical" play, so much as I consider it fictional. I just like to create my guy, manage a team beginning in Rookie League, working my way up as a manager through the farm system, and watching my guy develop. (I also have my twin bro in the same farm system as well.)

I am now in the year 2007, having played every single game for five whole seasons. I started doing this with the new interface of OOTP 2007. I used the same league for 2009, and now for X. I will continue using this league for XI as well.

By this time, the league is pretty much completely fictional. There are still some real-named players who have been around since I created the league in 2002. But the majority of players have been randomly created, and now looks like a fictional league. With the exception of the history I imported since 1871.

To me, I think this truly is the best way to play. Just create your character at the age of 18, import the year that you really were age 18, and go from there, ignoring the current real MLB players, getting past the first few years to where the newly generated players begin to come into their own and start replacing the real players.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by ShaneCarson

You wouldn't compare range factors between positions. The range factor for a 1B is completely independent of range factor for a SS. You just compare within positions, so you can only compare Cal Ripken Jr. to Alan Trammell or Robin Yount. You can't compare them to Kirk Gibson.

Oh, I see.

So, is there a way to create a statistical formula which compares the range of....say....your SS to the league average for SS, rather than just trying to "get the feel" for how much range a SS is supposed to have in your league?

Also, another thing I find could really make things innaccurate, is if you have a majority of pitchers who are fly-ball pitchers, even though your SS is one of the best SSs in the league, playing on a team with fly-ball pitchers will definitely artificially skew the RF for your SS down. Unless, of course, the number of groundouts is for your team is kind of "averaged out" over the course of an entire season.

So, given the problem of the tendencies of your pitchers, is there a way to neutralize the effect of a SS playing on a team which gives up more fly-outs than ground-outs?

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by rich12545

I don't know for sure but would think range factor has something to do with how far and accurate a fielder can throw.

That is already determined in the ratings. It's called "Arm." As a statistical way of tracking, I really see no way of how you can determine this. With the exception of the Catcher, of course.

And I'm not so sure why you think the first baseman is the least skilled position. In addition to fielding he is responsible for digging errant throws out of the dirt while keeping his foot on the base.

Heh, I have played every infield position. Believe me, first base is, by far, the easiest position. It is also why it is the easiest position to learn in-game. If you lack first basemen, just pick anyone on your bench to play it every single game. Even if there is no rating for that player at first base, they very quickly become rated. After just 10 whole games of playing there, you can go from a rating of "-" up to a rating of 7 or 8 out of 100.

Force a player with no rating at that position to play there all game, every game, all season long, and you could very easily develop that player to have at least a rating of 40/100. Or 4/10.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

Someone who's more intimately connected with the game would be a stronger authority, but how I understand the game to work is that the outcome of a plate appearance (strikeout, BB, HR, HBP, hit, out) is determined before any aspects of a batted ball is determined. That is, the engine doesn't decide if a ball is hit in play and then determines if it is an out, but decides first if it's an out or hit, then uses distribution matrices to "assign" the outcome to a batted-ball type and area of the field. The type of batted ball shown (LD, GB, FB, etc.) doesn't factor in to how the engine determines what happens with a plate appearance, but is only a cosmetic designation that overlays the more simplistic game engine.

Therefore, unless the engine is recoded, new zone-based fielding data will only reflect the same type of deployment of batted-ball data that exists currently. The fact that your centerfielder got to X% of balls in his zone, and, if it's calculated, saves X number of runs, doesn't reflect a process that actually takes place in the game engine.

It could still be possible to 'backfit' the fielder's range into the result. If you work under the assumption that the overall result is based on average range fielders, you could then take a hit away if the fielder as good range or let a ball drop for a hit that would have been caught for a fielder with bad range.

This might not be as good as determining the outcome in a logical order, but the result may be reasonable.

[bosunmate]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

You and me, pal. Over the years, I have never understood the value of historical replay, as much as I respect its fans.

I play only Historical, but i don't do replay. I put the players into the draft every year so players can go anywhere. I only play 30 or 40 years then start over. I let the computer do the trades. I guess being a almost senior i find comfort in playing with the players of my childhood....

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by robc

It could still be possible to 'backfit' the fielder's range into the result. If you work under the assumption that the overall result is based on average range fielders, you could then take a hit away if the fielder as good range or let a ball drop for a hit that would have been caught for a fielder with bad range.

This might not be as good as determining the outcome in a logical order, but the result may be reasonable.

As I understand it, the game does indeed implement some kind of "backfitting" in order to factor in the effect of the quality of defense in determining the outcome of a batted ball. The problem is that it takes the overall composition of the defense that takes the field at any single point in time to decide the result of the play instead of matching a batted ball as hit in a certain area of the field with a single defender, which is how fielding zones work and which is, to me, an obviously more realistic method to simulate the result of a plate appearance.

So, the engine doesn't determine that the batter hits a fly ball to the left-center field gap, then factors in the LF's or CF's range, along with park factors, to determine whether or not it falls for a hit, but takes the ratings of ALL the defenders *as an overall snapshot* at the beginning of the event, then uses that as a factor for the outcome. Meaningful zone rating statistics demand that the engine actually use batted ball data in determining PA outcomes. It's a shame it doesn't, and we probably need to wait for a complete re-coding of the game for this level of realism.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

As I understand it, the game does indeed implement some kind of "backfitting" in order to factor in the effect of the quality of defense in determining the outcome of a batted ball. The problem is that it takes the overall composition of the defense that takes the field at any single point in time to decide the result of the play instead of matching a batted ball as hit in a certain area of the field with a single defender, which is how fielding zones work and which is, to me, an obviously more realistic method to simulate the result of a plate appearance.

So, the engine doesn't determine that the batter hits a fly ball to the left-center field gap, then factors in the LF's or CF's range, along with park factors, to determine whether or not it falls for a hit, but takes the ratings of ALL the defenders *as an overall snapshot* at the beginning of the event, then uses that as a factor for the outcome. Meaningful zone rating statistics demand that the engine actually use batted ball data in determining PA outcomes. It's a shame it doesn't, and we probably need to wait for a complete re-coding of the game for this level of realism.

Ohhh, so THAT'S why my star SS commits so many errors sometimes! He is rated 100/100, and yet, has a .976 field %! It's because my first basemen are usually people I just throw into that spot to get developed there, while they have like a 1 or 2 rating.

(It could also be why my crappy-rated first baseman does so damned well too!) lol.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Ohhh, so THAT'S why my star SS commits so many errors sometimes! He is rated 100/100, and yet, has a .976 field %! It's because my first basemen are usually people I just throw into that spot to get developed there, while they have like a 1 or 2 rating.

(It could also be why my crappy-rated first baseman does so damned well too!) lol.

Not 100% sure if the game does this, but it would make sense to me if errors were assigned according to the abilities of individual fielders. That is, the game engine looks at the overall defense, determines if there is a BIP hit/BIP out/K/error/BB/HBP/HR/other event, and then figures out to whom the error goes according to probabilities based on the fielders' error ratings.

.976 is actually above average for a SS, if I'm not mistaken, so I don't think that result is out of line for his ratings.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by jmlima

Well, my knowledge of baseball is potentially small, but I'm not sure how realistic it can be if inter-league business is still not handled as historically was. (as in the PCL making their business by selling players, which is not at all represented in the game).

League interaction is an important game issue, particularly as it relates to the major-minor relationship. That's something whose history is long, somewhat complicated, and evolutionary.

In regards to minor leagues making money from selling players to the majors, that peaked in the 1920s. The Baltimore Orioles of the International League are likely the best example. But by the 1930s, with the return of all minor leagues to the draft and changes to the way players were handled under working agreements, minor league clubs became ever more dependent on the majors for support.

The PCL was somewhat outside this trend due to its distance from Major League competition and having some very large markets in its league.

[Cornelius McGillicuddy]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

That is already determined in the ratings. It's called "Arm." As a statistical way of tracking, I really see no way of how you can determine this. With the exception of the Catcher, of course.



Heh, I have played every infield position. Believe me, first base is, by far, the easiest position. It is also why it is the easiest position to learn in-game. If you lack first basemen, just pick anyone on your bench to play it every single game. Even if there is no rating for that player at first base, they very quickly become rated. After just 10 whole games of playing there, you can go from a rating of "-" up to a rating of 7 or 8 out of 100.

Force a player with no rating at that position to play there all game, every game, all season long, and you could very easily develop that player to have at least a rating of 40/100. Or 4/10.

Interesting. Never knew that about 1B. I just played the outfield (RF) where I could do the least damage lol. There was no DH.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by ShaneCarson

I honestly felt the same way about historical play for a long time. It just made no sense to me and I liked playing either fictional or current MLB.

But I decided to give it one last hurrah and turned recalc off, made it so players didn't retire according to history and finely tuned aging and talent change randomness to my liking. I started in '75 and I am having a blast with it, being in the '79 season so far. I get to watch Mark Fidrych develop into a long term pitcher, Ray Bare is a staff ace, nobody wants Nolan Ryan, the Expos won the '78 World Series, etc. So it's not playing out ANYTHING like real baseball did and I'll tell you what, I love it!

I think you hit the nail on the head. If recalc is on, and the AI is oblivious to it, then human GM's have an advantage that makes things unplayable.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

Not 100% sure if the game does this, but it would make sense to me if errors were assigned according to the abilities of individual fielders. That is, the game engine looks at the overall defense, determines if there is a BIP hit/BIP out/K/error/BB/HBP/HR/other event, and then figures out to whom the error goes according to probabilities based on the fielders' error ratings.

.976 is actually above average for a SS, if I'm not mistaken, so I don't think that result is out of line for his ratings.

Ah, I just looked it up. You're right. .976 is not out of line. It is actually slightly better than league average, which was .972 last year.

I guess an error by this particular SS just takes me by surprise sometimes. I think I think about a SS flubbing a ground-hit ball is just something which sticks in my mind than if the 1b flubbed the ball.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by rich12545

Interesting. Never knew that about 1B. I just played the outfield (RF) where I could do the least damage lol. There was no DH.

haha, so you were one of those big fat baseball players who can only hit for power, but always seems to hit a friggin HR every damned time to the plate?


heh, yeah, seriously though, I personally find 1B much easier than any other position. Of course, I find SS to be much easier than any outfield position as well. (I hate the outfield. I can never tell where the hell it is the ball is going to end up. I just like the really quick reaction time in the infield where you don't have to ponder on it for so damned long. lol.)

And I think most people generally agree that first is the easiest position. I assume so, because Markus even programmed it into the game, making it extremely easy for anyone to learn the position in OOTP.

[StyxNCa]

I gave up on OOTP as an historical game a few versions back so none of the historical sales pitch hooks me. New stats. Sorry, I don't look at 2/3 of the stats that are there now. The new ones are just more space takers that I wouldn't look at.

The mass select feature is great but isn't worth $30 to me. Now, if you bundle that with the ability to verify lineup changes during a game before making it "official" and add the ability to make baserunning decisions rather than having the AI do it, I may spend $30 but as it is now there is nothing other than the mass select that interests me so let me know when you fix the actual game playing things such as the two examples I've mentioned and I will consider shelling out more money.

These have to do with actually playing the game. They are not bells and whistles or just added junk to use as a sales pitch.

[ShaneCarson]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

The mass select feature is great but isn't worth $30 to me. Now, if you bundle that with the ability to verify lineup changes during a game before making it "official" and add the ability to make baserunning decisions rather than having the AI do it, I may spend $30 but as it is now there is nothing other than the mass select that interests me so let me know when you fix the actual game playing things such as the two examples I've mentioned and I will consider shelling out more money.

These have to do with actually playing the game. They are not bells and whistles or just added junk to use as a sales pitch.

Since I was not aware that the engine determined the outcome of the play before it determined how the play unfolded, I think that allowing you to determine baserunning decisions would be impossible without a change.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I gave up on OOTP as an historical game a few versions back so none of the historical sales pitch hooks me. New stats. Sorry, I don't look at 2/3 of the stats that are there now. The new ones are just more space takers that I wouldn't look at.

The mass select feature is great but isn't worth $30 to me. Now, if you bundle that with the ability to verify lineup changes during a game before making it "official" and add the ability to make baserunning decisions rather than having the AI do it, I may spend $30 but as it is now there is nothing other than the mass select that interests me so let me know when you fix the actual game playing things such as the two examples I've mentioned and I will consider shelling out more money.

These have to do with actually playing the game. They are not bells and whistles or just added junk to use as a sales pitch.

lol, you're always a downer.

Actually, as I have sid before in this thread, what Markus has added is not simply "a sale's pitch." These are things he adds, because these are things which are requested by more people than any other feature requests. If 500 people request new stats,but only 5 people request verifying lineup changes, for instance, as a sound business decision, you add the new stats instead, since 100 times as many people requested it.

However, the things you mentioned would be great to have in the game. I would love to have base running decisions back again, for instance. (I dunno about the "game verify" thing. Isn't that already in the game, in the screen just before you press "Start Game!"?)

To me, if you don't verify before the screen, and you don;t verify it at the screen, it's your own fault. It would be no different than once the manager hands the umpire the game's starting lineup card. Once you pressed "start game," at that screen, that's it. You handed the official card to the ump.

[robc]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I gave up on OOTP as an historical game a few versions back so none of the historical sales pitch hooks me. New stats. Sorry, I don't look at 2/3 of the stats that are there now. The new ones are just more space takers that I wouldn't look at.

The mass select feature is great but isn't worth $30 to me. Now, if you bundle that with the ability to verify lineup changes during a game before making it "official" and add the ability to make baserunning decisions rather than having the AI do it, I may spend $30 but as it is now there is nothing other than the mass select that interests me so let me know when you fix the actual game playing things such as the two examples I've mentioned and I will consider shelling out more money.

These have to do with actually playing the game. They are not bells and whistles or just added junk to use as a sales pitch.

Yes, I wish OOTP would add the ability to coach the base runners directly. I get to do that in the other baseball game I play. I think this version shows promiss. For me the key is how fielding is handled.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by ShaneCarson

Since I was not aware that the engine determined the outcome of the play before it determined how the play unfolded, I think that allowing you to determine baserunning decisions would be impossible without a change.

Ah! Excellent point! That is probably why that feature was taken out in the first place!

I am sure the game already takes this into account if you set the baserunning strategy for the team as a whole, and for each individual baserunner.

I also think it adds more of a level of realism anyway as well. A manager is never the one making any baserunning decisions. He merely coaches the team the level of aggression he wants to see out on the field. And even if the base coach gives the sign to either stay or stop, it is still ultimately up to the runner himself whether he stays or goes. Players can be unpredictable. It also adds a level of communications problems as well. If you say "send the runner" like you used to be able to do, the always goes no matter what. This is far from being true IRL.

[Cornelius McGillicuddy]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

haha, so you were one of those big fat baseball players who can only hit for power, but always seems to hit a friggin HR every damned time to the plate?


heh, yeah, seriously though, I personally find 1B much easier than any other position. Of course, I find SS to be much easier than any outfield position as well. (I hate the outfield. I can never tell where the hell it is the ball is going to end up. I just like the really quick reaction time in the infield where you don't have to ponder on it for so damned long. lol.)

And I think most people generally agree that first is the easiest position. I assume so, because Markus even programmed it into the game, making it extremely easy for anyone to learn the position in OOTP.

I could never tell where the ball was going to end up either but I'm left handed (bat right though) so I got stuck in RF. Nobody ever suggested 1B, too bad. I wasn't a power hitter (tall and skinny) but hit for average and could steal. Didn't really play much though, basketball was more my fav sport.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

lol, you're always a downer.

Actually, as I have sid before in this thread, what Markus has added is not simply "a sale's pitch." These are things he adds, because these are things which are requested by more people than any other feature requests. If 500 people request new stats,but only 5 people request verifying lineup changes, for instance, as a sound business decision, you add the new stats instead, since 100 times as many people requested it.

However, the things you mentioned would be great to have in the game. I would love to have base running decisions back again, for instance. (I dunno about the "game verify" thing. Isn't that already in the game, in the screen just before you press "Start Game!"?)

To me, if you don't verify before the screen, and you don;t verify it at the screen, it's your own fault. It would be no different than once the manager hands the umpire the game's starting lineup card. Once you pressed "start game," at that screen, that's it. You handed the official card to the ump.

No, I didn't mean the lineup screen before the game starts. I am talking the in-game screen where if you accidentally drop someone in the wrong slot you're SOL. Nothing you can do about it.