|
||||
|
|
OOTP 18 - Historical Simulations Discuss historical simulations and their results in this forum. |
|
Thread Tools |
01-12-2018, 01:57 PM | #1 |
Major Leagues
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Dallas
Posts: 325
|
Recalc or development engine
Which way do you guys prefer to play historical and why?
|
01-12-2018, 02:26 PM | #2 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks
Posts: 8,880
|
I use both at the same time. I'm a 1 year recalc guy because I love the ups and downs of real life. I know sometimes it leads to strange things like a player winning a Cy Young one season and pitching at the bottom of the bullpen the next, but that's more often than not due to a real life issue. . My current random debut uses 1 year recalc with the development engine on and I set talent change randomness to the max 200. Too early to determine the effect the 200 setting is having.
Last edited by David Watts; 01-12-2018 at 02:28 PM. |
01-12-2018, 05:23 PM | #3 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,947
|
I use 1 year recalc because I want to get a sense of how players really performed. Even with 1 year recalc players will hit 20 or 30 points higher/lower than they did in real life but their career stats will be somewhat close to their real life stats. With developmental engine, I think you could get something very different (depending on your settings).
|
01-12-2018, 06:04 PM | #4 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
|
3 year recalc, double weighted for the current year, with the development engine on at default settings. I like it because it smooths out the rough edges that one year recalc brings out, but still brings a heavy focus (50%, as opposed to 25% each for the previous and immediately following years) to the year in question. I leave the development engine on because I play random debut historicals, so retiring players according to history is not an option, and therefore in order to get them to shuffle off rather than continuing with the final season of the players career ad nauseam is important. The ratings hit they eventually take due to age when the RL seasons run out will get them out of the game, some sooner than others.
Last edited by actionjackson; 01-12-2018 at 06:10 PM. |
02-05-2018, 07:56 PM | #5 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
|
Real Stats (5-year base)
Base Potential: remaining Years of Career Base Fielding on Career Base Pitcher Stamina on Career Adjust Hitters with fewer than 40 AB Weaken Hitters with fewer than 30 AB Adjust Pitchers with fewer than 10 IP Weaken Pitchers with fewer than 8 IP Position Player Fatigue: High Disable Player Development: On Retire Players According to History: On Strategic Ratings for any season: Use Relievers: Very often Use Closers: Very Often Pitcher Stamina: Very Low Stealing Bases: Normal Hit and Run: Very Rarely Bunting: Normal |
02-05-2018, 08:05 PM | #6 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
|
Quote:
|
|
02-05-2018, 08:12 PM | #7 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
|
The neutralized stats are good too. I'd like to see us create a new build of the neutralized stats and update them as they have not been updated in many seasons. I have been enjoying using the real stats and playing with all park factors set to 1.000. Using 5 years as the base gets you around many of the issues with WWII.
|
02-05-2018, 08:23 PM | #8 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
|
Quote:
Very interested in the potential neutralized stats update as well. Unfortunately, I don't have the skillset that you might be looking for to help in that, as I don't really have the database skills or spreadsheet skills. I can fumble my way through spreadsheets, but databases are a whole other matter. I'm enthusiastic for anything that puts neutralized stats back on the front burner. I'm just not sure how much help I can offer. |
|
02-05-2018, 09:13 PM | #9 | |
OOTP Historical Czar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bothell Wa
Posts: 7,254
|
Quote:
__________________
It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it! |
|
02-05-2018, 10:10 PM | #10 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,856
|
Why do you use that? I'm thinking of lowering it (from 100) but not sure how much. Lowering to 40 might counteract the pinch-hitting penalty that double-penalizes those who were primarily pinch-hitters.
|
02-05-2018, 11:51 PM | #11 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
|
I agree with you about the neutralized weather. I use a custom file for that too. The weather affects the simulation if you do not neutralize it. I think I remember Markus saying that it affects pitcher stamina. I don't know what else or to what extent it affects other things.
The import settings are a bit confusing. Since I use a 5-yr base for my player ratings, I am still going to be basing the player ratings on at least 40*5 = 200 AB. The values in the import settings are averages rather than raw totals. So 3-yr recalc set to 100 AB is the same as 1-yr recalc set to 300 AB in terms of requiring at least 300 total AB without getting the ratings adjusted or weakened. I have not seen any issues with players having inflated ratings using these settings and I even did a search in Lahman to see the highest batting averages for players between 200-250 AB and did not see any issues. I personally think that 200 or 250 AB is enough to be confident in batter ratings. Remember that over 5 seasons, most guys will have way more than 200 AB anyways. One issue you will have in the simulation is the WWII seasons and if I set this to 40 AB then Hank Greenberg will never get his ratings adjusted or weakened. So, you might call this my Hank Greenberg setting. The same goes for pitchers. By setting this to 10 IP, that is actually a sample of 200 IP for SP's. The game quadruples this value for SP, so 10 becomes 40, and over 5 seasons this becomes 200 IP. I don't think I need a bigger sample size than 200 IP to rate a pitcher. For relievers this is still a minimum of 50 IP. |
02-06-2018, 08:48 AM | #12 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks
Posts: 8,880
|
Quote:
Also, with player position fatigue set to high, what injury setting do you use? With retire according to history on, what's your average roster size? Thanks. |
|
02-06-2018, 08:19 PM | #13 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
|
I do not use the lefty/righty thing. I turn off injuries. There are plenty of players to fill the roster. I usually go with 16-17 position players so that I have 2 players for each position if possible and then 11 pitchers. In early seasons you won't have 11 pitchers on the staff though.
|
02-14-2018, 12:13 AM | #14 |
Hall Of Famer
|
I am using the development engine this time around for something different.
__________________
This just feels more like waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. PETA.....People Eating Tasty Animals. |
03-24-2018, 05:48 PM | #15 |
All Star Reserve
|
On my current game I took a historical league at 1978 and summed four years forward with full ootp development on. I use fictional player names and fictional rookies. Game feels much better balanced this way...really preferring this to vanilla historical.
|
03-24-2018, 05:59 PM | #16 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,798
|
I always use 3-year recalc but the Challenge Mode forces me into the development engine and I like that too. Both ways are fun. It really depends upon whether you want surprises or not.
|
03-25-2018, 01:23 PM | #17 | |
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
|
|
04-02-2018, 02:31 PM | #18 | |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 91
|
Quote:
On replay leagues, I have never set it to other than on Average. Well, once I set it to Low and I didnt like that because hardly anybody played over 150 games in a 154 game season. |
|
04-03-2018, 10:17 PM | #19 | |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 91
|
Quote:
Last edited by warneke; 04-03-2018 at 10:29 PM. |
|
05-03-2018, 05:49 AM | #20 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Across the Pond
Posts: 1,033
|
Hm, weather neutral ?. Never thought about that. And only in MLB citites. How much do this interfere ? How do I do this ?
Isn't the AI evaluation contra the adjust figures very much related ? If the AI leans heavy on ratings or on stats after the fact of adjusting players. My biggest headache is always to see too many cup-of-coffee players brake into important starter roles the longer one plays. I do use Disable any development and lately using retire historical, since I think these two factor play some roles in bringing in those odd players. With a full minor league input the AI have a huge load of minors to select and bring up to the majors. Hence making them important players. Wouldn't lower the adjust sets actually bring even more "unknown" minors players to potential stardom ?. Perhaps the biggest position player that is in this problem is the catcher. Many minors are brought to the majors that really never made it any longer time among the big boys. Second is the pitchers. Too many strange starting lineups in a few years after start, not to mention my great agony of having bullpens with almost all lefties. Addition the Pitcher Stamina based on career is something I don't use. I use 1-year since I fear that some starters that converted to closers and back again will play out very different. John Smoltz of course is the best pick. How would his year of turning into closer happen. He missed 1 year and came back as a bonafide closer for 4 years then turned starter again. I have yet to reach Mr. Smoltz critical years in my try-outs so perhaps it will be OK. |
Bookmarks |
|
|