Playing historical players without recalc

robc · 05-04-2018, 03:03 PM

Hi,

I'm not a frequent player, but when I do I tend to play as the 1970s Yankees or early 80s Yankees. I used to always play with recalc on, varying the recalc period. This players performing roughly like they should. After several times I started getting tired of that.

More recently (a version or 2 ago) I tried real players, but turning recalc off and using the OOTP development engine. I wanted to play with full minor leagues so I would have more players to manage and with the development engine it wouldn't be a given how players would be rated. I did want players initial potential ratings to be realistic though.

There were some key players for me (Ron Guidry, Don Mattingly) whose potentials always seemed too low, so they would never have the type of years they were capable of. Since they were my favorite players, that would kill it for me. Maybe with someone like Guidry, he just didn't have enough great years to great great potential ratings and Don's back problems limited his performance.

Does anyone know if potential rating calculation has changed over the past version or two so these players may be rated better?

Thanks

italyprof · 05-04-2018, 05:48 PM

Hi. Mattingly remains my favorite player ever. And I remember when we first started clapping for strikeouts with Guidry in 1978. So I understand.

Keep in mind that if you play with 1-year recalc, most of the time the yearly results will be what they were for players. If you play with three year, it works so that one-third of the results come form each of the three year.

But if you cllick on the option, under League Settings and Historical, to double the wieight of the current year, then half of the results will come from that year, 25% from the year before and 25% from the year after. So if you play Mattingly in 1985, with three-year recalc, the result will be within a certain range based on half the weighting from '85, one-fourth from his excellent 84 and one-fourth from his excellent 86 season.

But if you play him in 1988, with three-year recalc, it goes one-third each for 1987, 88 and 89, when his back issues were a problem. But double the current year and half will be 88, one-fourth each for 87 and 89.

So a lot of possible outcomes there.

If you go with five year recalc, 1985 becomes - 1983 (rookie year): 20%, 1984 20%, 85 20%, 86 20 %.

But do that with a later season, like 1990, and you have 20% each for 1988-92, not his best seasons.

If you double the current year in his best seasons, therefore, with either three or five year recalc, you will get better results, if you turn it off for his worst years, you reduce the effect of these years and at least when he had great ones at the margins of that five year period, they have some impact.

That would be my advice to get the kind of results you are looking for.

robc · 05-04-2018, 06:05 PM

Thanks for your replay, I appreciate it. I guess I didn't word my problem clearly. I used to play with recalc turned on because, like you stated, the players perform as close to real life as possible. After doing that several times I started getting bored with recalc turned on because I knew how the players should perform.

What I would like to do is have recalc turned off and use the OOTP player development engine, so after the initial import I won't know exactly how players will be rated. Their future ratings will be based on the potential ratings they were imported with.

My problem (in prior OOTP versions) is that if I import Guidry or Mattingly as a rookie, their potential ratings don't really reflect how good their future seasons were in real life, so in OOTP they never really develop to have great years.

Since recalc is turned off I don't expect them to be the same as they were in real life, but their imported potential ratings seem too low. In my all my seasons I tested with them (dozens upon dozens), they never have great seasons because their ratings simple never match what they would be if I have recalc turned on.

So what I would like is for them to have a reasonable chance to develop and have some of the great seasons they did in real life, knowing that sometimes things will work out worse or better than they did in real life.

Thanks again for your previous answer, but that wasn't what I'm currently looking for.

italyprof · 05-04-2018, 06:29 PM

I am pretty sure that potential ratings grow as players develop. I may be wrong. What are their potential ratings at entry into the league?

Keep in mind that 80 is for Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson etc.

David Watts · 05-04-2018, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robc

Thanks for your replay, I appreciate it. I guess I didn't word my problem clearly. I used to play with recalc turned on because, like you stated, the players perform as close to real life as possible. After doing that several times I started getting bored with recalc turned on because I knew how the players should perform.

What I would like to do is have recalc turned off and use the OOTP player development engine, so after the initial import I won't know exactly how players will be rated. Their future ratings will be based on the potential ratings they were imported with.

My problem (in prior OOTP versions) is that if I import Guidry or Mattingly as a rookie, their potential ratings don't really reflect how good their future seasons were in real life, so in OOTP they never really develop to have great years.

Since recalc is turned off I don't expect them to be the same as they were in real life, but their imported potential ratings seem too low. In my all my seasons I tested with them (dozens upon dozens), they never have great seasons because their ratings simple never match what they would be if I have recalc turned on.

So what I would like is for them to have a reasonable chance to develop and have some of the great seasons they did in real life, knowing that sometimes things will work out worse or better than they did in real life.

Thanks again for your previous answer, but that wasn't what I'm currently looking for.

What did you use for "base potential on" I'm wondering if Mattingly and Guidry would benefit from using the base potential on peak seasons setting?

robc · 05-04-2018, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by italyprof

I am pretty sure that potential ratings grow as players develop. I may be wrong. What are their potential ratings at entry into the league?

Keep in mind that 80 is for Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson etc.

It was a while ago, so I don't recall exactly. I'm pretty sure with Guidry, based on a 1-100 scale had a stuff potential of in the mid to upper 50s if I started the league in initial minor league year up until maybe 1975. I think if recalc is on for 1978 his stuff was 70s or 80s out of 100.

robc · 05-04-2018, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

What did you use for "base potential on" I'm wondering if Mattingly and Guidry would benefit from using the base potential on peak seasons setting?

That is what I usually used, but I remember trying different settings when I was testing things.

robc · 05-05-2018, 02:26 AM

I just bought OOTP 19 and created a test league starting in 1971. Ron Guidry's potential ratings look much better than when I last tried.His potential stuff imported with a 70. I'm tempted to create a league in OOTP 18 to verify he used to import with a 50 something.

robc · 05-05-2018, 03:08 AM

I created a 1971 league in OOTP 18 and Guidry had the same stuff potential rating of 70. His potential movement was better in OOTP 18 by 6 points. Potential control ws the same.

Then I created a 1973 league and Guidry's potential stuff dropped to 62. It's possible I used to create my leagues in 1973/74/75 and maybe Guidry's potentials are lower for some reason.

In OOTP 19 I simmed up until 1979 and Mattingly's potentials looked good (87 con / 63 pow / 43 eye).

I'm psyched that OOTP has real historical splits for batters now. That is cool.

Syd Thrift · 05-07-2018, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by italyprof

I am pretty sure that potential ratings grow as players develop. I may be wrong. What are their potential ratings at entry into the league?

Keep in mind that 80 is for Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson etc.

I don't believe that you can expect potentials to grow after initial generation, no. Sometimes they do go up and down on their own with a frequency based on the Talent Change Randomness figure, but that's more or less random (I believe that players with better coaching, development budgets, and higher Work Ethic and Intelligence ratings might have *slightly* better chances for positive TCR, but mostly those ratings just help a player reach their potential in the first place). What often happens in fictional leagues is that a lot of good players are guys who were picked in the middle to later rounds who got TCR bumps so it may look like development = potential increases, but in reality I'm pretty sure that the average 20 year old in single A has a more or less equal chance of getting that bump as any other 20 year old, the other factors I mentioned being controlled for.

Talent hits are IIRC a little less random, in part because of complaints. Now they're still pretty random but there's a sizeable correlation with long term injuries. If a guy has to go through the dreaded Tommy John surgery, there really is a chance, higher than what you'd see from a guy playing out that season instead of missing it, that he'll return without the same stuff he used to have.

Also, I may be totally off on this but I *think* that unfulfilled potential ratings on some abilities starts to go away as a player ages. It's not, like, on the calendar year or anything, and the time the ability erodes varies (I *think* BABIP goes away early whereas Eye potential might stay into a player's 30s) but I'm pretty sure that at some point if you have a great prospect who just for some reason never progresses, after a while he stops having that star potential.

05-04-2018, 03:03 PM	#1
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,079	Playing historical players without recalc Hi, I'm not a frequent player, but when I do I tend to play as the 1970s Yankees or early 80s Yankees. I used to always play with recalc on, varying the recalc period. This players performing roughly like they should. After several times I started getting tired of that. More recently (a version or 2 ago) I tried real players, but turning recalc off and using the OOTP development engine. I wanted to play with full minor leagues so I would have more players to manage and with the development engine it wouldn't be a given how players would be rated. I did want players initial potential ratings to be realistic though. There were some key players for me (Ron Guidry, Don Mattingly) whose potentials always seemed too low, so they would never have the type of years they were capable of. Since they were my favorite players, that would kill it for me. Maybe with someone like Guidry, he just didn't have enough great years to great great potential ratings and Don's back problems limited his performance. Does anyone know if potential rating calculation has changed over the past version or two so these players may be rated better? Thanks __________________ Because I play too much, One Guy, Too Many Games

05-04-2018, 06:05 PM	#3
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,079	Thanks for your replay, I appreciate it. I guess I didn't word my problem clearly. I used to play with recalc turned on because, like you stated, the players perform as close to real life as possible. After doing that several times I started getting bored with recalc turned on because I knew how the players should perform. What I would like to do is have recalc turned off and use the OOTP player development engine, so after the initial import I won't know exactly how players will be rated. Their future ratings will be based on the potential ratings they were imported with. My problem (in prior OOTP versions) is that if I import Guidry or Mattingly as a rookie, their potential ratings don't really reflect how good their future seasons were in real life, so in OOTP they never really develop to have great years. Since recalc is turned off I don't expect them to be the same as they were in real life, but their imported potential ratings seem too low. In my all my seasons I tested with them (dozens upon dozens), they never have great seasons because their ratings simple never match what they would be if I have recalc turned on. So what I would like is for them to have a reasonable chance to develop and have some of the great seasons they did in real life, knowing that sometimes things will work out worse or better than they did in real life. Thanks again for your previous answer, but that wasn't what I'm currently looking for. __________________ Because I play too much, One Guy, Too Many Games

05-05-2018, 02:26 AM	#8
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,079	I just bought OOTP 19 and created a test league starting in 1971. Ron Guidry's potential ratings look much better than when I last tried.His potential stuff imported with a 70. I'm tempted to create a league in OOTP 18 to verify he used to import with a 50 something. __________________ Because I play too much, One Guy, Too Many Games

05-05-2018, 03:08 AM	#9
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,079	I created a 1971 league in OOTP 18 and Guidry had the same stuff potential rating of 70. His potential movement was better in OOTP 18 by 6 points. Potential control ws the same. Then I created a 1973 league and Guidry's potential stuff dropped to 62. It's possible I used to create my leagues in 1973/74/75 and maybe Guidry's potentials are lower for some reason. In OOTP 19 I simmed up until 1979 and Mattingly's potentials looked good (87 con / 63 pow / 43 eye). I'm psyched that OOTP has real historical splits for batters now. That is cool. __________________ Because I play too much, One Guy, Too Many Games

05-04-2018, 05:48 PM	#2
italyprof All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 991	Hi. Mattingly remains my favorite player ever. And I remember when we first started clapping for strikeouts with Guidry in 1978. So I understand. Keep in mind that if you play with 1-year recalc, most of the time the yearly results will be what they were for players. If you play with three year, it works so that one-third of the results come form each of the three year. But if you cllick on the option, under League Settings and Historical, to double the wieight of the current year, then half of the results will come from that year, 25% from the year before and 25% from the year after. So if you play Mattingly in 1985, with three-year recalc, the result will be within a certain range based on half the weighting from '85, one-fourth from his excellent 84 and one-fourth from his excellent 86 season. But if you play him in 1988, with three-year recalc, it goes one-third each for 1987, 88 and 89, when his back issues were a problem. But double the current year and half will be 88, one-fourth each for 87 and 89. So a lot of possible outcomes there. If you go with five year recalc, 1985 becomes - 1983 (rookie year): 20%, 1984 20%, 85 20%, 86 20 %. But do that with a later season, like 1990, and you have 20% each for 1988-92, not his best seasons. If you double the current year in his best seasons, therefore, with either three or five year recalc, you will get better results, if you turn it off for his worst years, you reduce the effect of these years and at least when he had great ones at the margins of that five year period, they have some impact. That would be my advice to get the kind of results you are looking for.

05-04-2018, 06:29 PM	#4
italyprof All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 991	I am pretty sure that potential ratings grow as players develop. I may be wrong. What are their potential ratings at entry into the league? Keep in mind that 80 is for Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson etc.