19th Century Improvement Thread

[guamyank]

I can see some people wanting to play the schedule as played, and some people wanting to play "as scheduled ". Im guessing more people will want to use as played, but who knows. "As scheduled" fans may want teams to play an equal number of games, even the ones that dropped out irl. Because some of the seasons didnt use a schedule, this would require some creative reconstruction to rebuild the schedules as best as possible.

I think we can all win on this issue. Building schedules may be one of the easiest things to resolve on this list.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

If you are replaying history with recalc and historical transactions on, wouldn't you want teams to be locked in to the schedule they actually played?

Most people doing historical leagues do not use the as played schedules, they use the as scheduled schedules. As played schedules include the distortions caused by tie games, postponements, and cancellations.

The point is the difficulty in really recreating an open league model like the NA. I can see it being easier to start with the NL in 1876 and its closed league model.

[guamyank]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Most people doing historical leagues do not use the as played schedules, they use the as scheduled schedules. As played schedules include the distortions caused by tie games, postponements, and cancellations.

The point is the difficulty in really recreating an open league model like the NA. I can see it being easier to start with the NL in 1876 and its closed league model.

The entire 19th Century is filled with distortions though. Give people the option for both types of schedules...with the understanding that an as scheduled schedule is at least 50% speculative. Theres alot people will miss out on , in fact are missing out on, with the neglection of the National Association.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Most people doing historical leagues do not use the as played schedules, they use the as scheduled schedules. As played schedules include the distortions caused by tie games, postponements, and cancellations.

The point is the difficulty in really recreating an open league model like the NA. I can see it being easier to start with the NL in 1876 and its closed league model.

Even after 1876 you still have some years in which teams folded during the season. In modern leagues it may be just a few games but before 1901 it could be a lot of games. To me the only way to accurately represent the 19th century historically is with as played schedules.
However i agree that using as scheduled schedules may be the best way to go for most people as it would still allow people to use as played schedules if they want.

I would still have the option to start in 1871 and follow the actual historical expansion.
They really need to do something about teams folding if you don't follow the game's expansion. Maybe allow you to move teams before starting the league and before expansion.
The American League in 1871 just doesn't feel right.

[guamyank]

Ok Ive tried to incorporate all comments and suggestions so far in the first post. Ill clean it up some more later. Further suggestions and ideas are of course welcome. Thanks for everyones contributions!

[BaseballMan]

I think we try to model the 19th century like the modern leagues.
Problem is that it may take away the chaos of the 19th century play
which is the heart of 19th century play.
Still the work that has been done by ootp and the beta teams is tremendous.
I still remember the days you could have 19th century players but it was practically impossible to run a league from 1871 without major problems stopping it somewhere down the line.
Now people can use the game's setup and start in 1871 and play. If they don't mind some slight changes from history they can at least get a league going.
For those like me that try for a more accurate 19th century play the progress is just as good. I can start in 1871 and have accurate rosters every year without it taking a year to get to 1900. I started my recent league on June 30th and i am already up to 1882.
The 19th century play still needs some work but i don't want to ignore the work that people have done to improve it.

[guamyank]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I think we try to model the 19th century like the modern leagues.
Problem is that it may take away the chaos of the 19th century play
which is the heart of 19th century play.
Still the work that has been done by ootp and the beta teams is tremendous.
I still remember the days you could have 19th century players but it was practically impossible to run a league from 1871 without major problems stopping it somewhere down the line.
Now people can use the game's setup and start in 1871 and play. If they don't mind some slight changes from history they can at least get a league going.
For those like me that try for a more accurate 19th century play the progress is just as good. I can start in 1871 and have accurate rosters every year without it taking a year to get to 1900. I started my recent league on June 30th and i am already up to 1882.
The 19th century play still needs some work but i don't want to ignore the work that people have done to improve it.

Well said. It's an area that has improved dramatically and now needs a bit more refining. Frankly, they've improved so much on other aspects of the game, eventually there isn't going to be much left to improve...so why not give the 19th century some more attention?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Even after 1876 you still have some years in which teams folded during the season.

That's straightforward to duplicate: the incoming team takes over the schedule of the club which exited, which is exactly how the majors handled it.

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

In modern leagues it may be just a few games but before 1901 it could be a lot of games. To me the only way to accurately represent the 19th century historically is with as played schedules.

You still have the problem of tie games not appearing in the simulated version.

For example, in the 1882 NL season, Detroit played 86 games, even though the schedule was for 84 games. Why? Tie games. (Detroit's record was 42-41-3). In the 1886 AA season, both the Brooklyn and Cincinnati clubs played 141 games in a 140-game schedule (the former finishing 76-61-4 and the latter 65-73-3). The 1887 New York Giants played 129 games in a 126-game schedule due to tie games (68-55-6). In 1888 the AA Brooklyn club played 143 games in a 140-game schedule (its final record was 88-52-3).

But all tie games don't appear in the as played schedule since they did not produce a win-loss result, and thus are treated as postponed games. (The rule was, and still is, to replay tie games in their entirety at a later date, schedule permitting),

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

The American League in 1871 just doesn't feel right.

On this point we are in absolute agreement.

[guamyank]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's straightforward to duplicate: the incoming team takes over the schedule of the club which exited, which is exactly how the majors handled it.

You still have the problem of tie games not appearing in the simulated version.

For example, in the 1882 NL season, Detroit played 86 games, even though the schedule was for 84 games. Why? Tie games. (Detroit's record was 42-41-3). In the 1886 AA season, both the Brooklyn and Cincinnati clubs played 141 games in a 140-game schedule (the former finishing 76-61-4 and the latter 65-73-3). The 1887 New York Giants played 129 games in a 126-game schedule due to tie games (68-55-6). In 1888 the AA Brooklyn club played 143 games in a 140-game schedule (its final record was 88-52-3).

But all tie games don't appear in the as played schedule since they did not produce a win-loss result, and thus are treated as postponed games. (The rule was, and still is, to replay tie games in their entirety at a later date, schedule permitting),

On this point we are in absolute agreement.

How would we identify the tie games easily? Retrosheet?

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by guamyank

How would we identify the tie games easily? Retrosheet?

https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1880/VCHN01880.htm

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by guamyank

How would we identify the tie games easily? Retrosheet?

Retrosheet's final standings for each season shows the number of tie games played by each club. If you examine each club's individual schedule of results the tie games are listed. (This is true of Retrosheet's season game log files as well.)

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's straightforward to duplicate: the incoming team takes over the schedule of the club which exited, which is exactly how the majors handled it.

You still have the problem of tie games not appearing in the simulated version.

For example, in the 1882 NL season, Detroit played 86 games, even though the schedule was for 84 games. Why? Tie games. (Detroit's record was 42-41-3). In the 1886 AA season, both the Brooklyn and Cincinnati clubs played 141 games in a 140-game schedule (the former finishing 76-61-4 and the latter 65-73-3). The 1887 New York Giants played 129 games in a 126-game schedule due to tie games (68-55-6). In 1888 the AA Brooklyn club played 143 games in a 140-game schedule (its final record was 88-52-3).

But all tie games don't appear in the as played schedule since they did not produce a win-loss result, and thus are treated as postponed games. (The rule was, and still is, to replay tie games in their entirety at a later date, schedule permitting),

On this point we are in absolute agreement.

Yes but in those tie games players did put up some stats.
Not much but for the nick picky it may matter.
I just look at retrosheets total games and make sure the as played schedule matches up. Just easier to me.
Although i do use regular schedules after 1900 so either way is fine.

[BaseballMan]

Nice lecture on 19th century baseball. Most of it i knew already but was still
an interesting talk.
I do agree with putting Chris Von der Ahe in the hall.

https://youtu.be/rb-3VHVSk2M

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I just look at retrosheets total games and make sure the as played schedule matches up.

Retrosheet club game played totals include tie games.

[DawnBTVS]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

There shouldn't be any relievers in the 19th century. None. Zippo. Nada.

OOTP forces any pitcher on the roster who exceeds the rotation limit to become a reliever. The best solution, then, is to make the rotation limit equal the number of pitchers on the staff. That way you shouldn't get any relievers.

Which also brings up another point: roster limits. There weren't any roster limits in MLB until the 1890s, and even then teams rarely carried as many players as they were permitted. Players were expensive and team owners were cheap, so most clubs carried the bare minimum. Through the 1880s, teams typically dressed around a dozen players for a game. It wasn't until pitching staffs started to expand in the 1890s that teams approached the 15-player limit that is the smallest roster allowed by OOTP. Realistically, then, the roster limit should be lowered to at least 12 to reflect the way teams operated in the 19th century.

I feel like this is kind of flying under the radar a little bit. The majority of the 1880s - 1890s saw teams employing anywhere from 10-13 position players in total (including bench guys who maybe played 10-30 games over the course of a season).

[Spritze]

The main reason for the 15 player limit was that 2-way players did not exist in OOTP as I recall. now they do as an option. but if gamers turn them off havoc could ensue. plus even now you can have less than 15 on non AI controlled teams. Oddly most gamers seem to set the roster size to 25 just because that is what they are used to.

[ojoe]

I've done a lot of 19th Century leagues over the years, trying to get it just the way I like it. I think I've got it now with OOTP19 - there is still a fair amount to do by hand, but I don't mind so much. I'm getting to like it.

But my thoughts on some of these...

Originally Posted by guamyank

Teams
1. General - Getting the right teams in each year is an obvious first step...

True, but I think we're pretty close on this. Teams do appear when they should - the only issue is that they don't fold. But it really doesn't take long to go in and delete the teams that didn't play in a particular year.

And if you're going to be really particular (which I am when simming from 1871), then there's the issue of franchise histories starting way before they did in real life - of the original 1871 franchises, really only the Braves should have a continuous line to the modern day. Even if I delete teams so that only the teams that really played are represented, some team histories are going to stay in tact. For example, even when the NL goes down to 6 teams, one of them will eventually become the L.A. Dodgers. As a Giants fan, that is unacceptable to me. But I usually just add and subtract teams manually until I get to 1901 - then I let automatic expansion take it from there.

Originally Posted by guamyank;4346262
2. [B

The Union Association[/B] - 1884 was a very unique year in baseball, with essentially 3 major leagues. Let's figure out the best way to implement in OOTP. My solution was to have 2 sub-leagues, 1 with the NL and another with 2 divisions, 1 being the AA and the other being the UA. A better solution would be the ability to create 3 sub-leagues, which is currently not possible.

I really don't mind just creating the UA - or the AA, for that matter - as separate leagues. I certainly prefer that to having the AA as a pre-1900s substitute for the American League.

There's some hassle to that, but it's not prohibitive. (At least, I don't think so...And if it is prohibitive, I don't always include the UA.)

Incidentally, this time around, I've tried adding the National Association as a separate league. Then for MLB, I put two dummy teams in each league and set the number of league games to 0. This skips the regular season for MLB, and then I play everything out in the NA.

At the end of 1875, I'll move the appropriate teams from the NA to the NL, and then fold the NA.

Originally Posted by guamyank

2. Transactions- I'm so used to making every transaction myself during the regular season, that I'm not even sure how it works from 1901 and on when you set it to automatic. Do players get traded or released correctly mid-season?

I have run through a few years with automatic expansion, and with real transactions enabled. It seemed to me that guys changed without me having to do it manually.

Originally Posted by guamyank

3. Pitchers - Most, if not all of the pitchers should be starting pitchers.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by guamyank

Front Office
1. Manager -
Allow for player/managers to be used.
Include real managers in the game.
[U][B]Where possible, use real abilities for managers.

Very much agreed. I don't know much about coding, but there's a "Turn Player into Coach" option when a player has retired. So maybe we could get that while he's still active? This isn't just a 19th century thing - player/managers were common well into the 20th Century.

I like the idea of real-life owners, too - but it's less important.

And going along with this, I'd like the option to induct managers (and I suppose owners) into the HOF...but that's another thread.

Originally Posted by guamyank

Graphics
1. Facegen - Player facegens are another thing that can be improved for the 19th century. Granted, this seems to be more of a community task than a dev task, but we can still come up with a list of 19th century players that need their facegens improved.

This might actually be the biggest one for me, because I'm sick of seeing this guy:


Could we get a facegen pack without him - I know there's still a great deal of similarity in the fictional faces that would be created, but it wouldn't be the same guy over and over and over and over again. Sometimes this guy is half (or more) of a team.

I try to delete him from my fg files wherever I see him, but it would be nice to someday get a fg set that doesn't include him at all.

As for uniforms and logos - I'm fine with what we have. There's been a lot of great work done on these, and the on-line cap and jersey makers are very helpful in filling in whatever gaps may arise.