Opening Day Dice Roll?

[max venerabel]

Originally Posted by dkgo

20 live mike trouts even in the same league also arent all the same. different home ballparks. different player strategies. different spots in the order. different surrounding team talent. different pitchers in the division. add all that to natural variance and I'm not surprised at all you could get a range between .210 and .290 with most towards the middle.

now if every single mike trout in a league hit right at .275 with a .900 ops, THAT would be concerning

That might be true. The things you mention are a factor, I just don't know how to quantify how much of a factor it should be.



I suppose the best way to test this would be to create an OOTP league where every team is identical to every other team, and see how far the variance stretches between identical players. In that case, we should see low variance over the course of a season, where a player hitting .050 above another identical player would be extremely rare. If it looks closer to how Perfect Team plays, its likely there is some kind of extra mechanic at play.

[pappyzan]

Originally Posted by max venerabel

That might be true. The things you mention are a factor, I just don't know how to quantify how much of a factor it should be.

I suppose the best way to test this would be to create an OOTP league where every team is identical to every other team, and see how far the variance stretches between identical players. In that case, we should see low variance over the course of a season, where a player hitting .050 above another identical player would be extremely rare. If it looks closer to how Perfect Team plays, its likely there is some kind of extra mechanic at play.

Yeh you'd need to also use identical parks, disable injuries, disable morale, disable player development, use identical rotations, identical bullpens, identical team/individual strategies, along with I'm sure a few other things. It'd never be perfect but it might be close enough to provide you the info you're looking for.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Dogberry99, They're not exclusive.

Using BA as an example...

We're not talking about .500 being the average here, where there's as much chance of hitting 1.000 than there is of hitting .000.

The average BA is let's say .275. To get that average your averaging between .000 and .550 (in a fixed environment).

If the competition is greater, your restricting the higher end of that range - say to .450 - thus the average is now .225. This is the "lower performance" component.

The "variance component" is also effected. If your possibilities are now limited to .000 - .450, your Hot Streaks are shorter and your slumps are longer - because your constricted to a smaller (and lower) range of possibilities.

Why are we assuming that a batting average of .000 is not a statistically significant outcome for these cards also? I believe that it would be as much an outlier as a .450 batting average, at least for the types of cards we're focusing on for the purposes of this discussion. And, since with this belief there is room for the lower performance component to shift closer to zero, I further believe that the entire bell curve of possible outcomes would shift left, not just the upper limits.

Basically, I disagree with your point that players are constricted to a smaller range of possibilities while agreeing that they are restricted to a lower range.

[PetGoneBad]

But can software really generate truly random numbers, and how does that factor into any of this?

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by dkgo

20 live mike trouts even in the same league also arent all the same. different home ballparks. different player strategies. different spots in the order. different surrounding team talent. different pitchers in the division. add all that to natural variance and I'm not surprised at all you could get a range between .210 and .290 with most towards the middle.

now if every single mike trout in a league hit right at .275 with a .900 ops, THAT would be concerning

It would be quite boring for sure, but I dont think it would be "concerning", nor would it be that strange, as it is LITERALLY the same card in all 20 cases.

[bobbycockstrong]

I know the devs said there is no individual player modifier or whatever at the start of the season - and that may be the case. But you have to remember, and this is something that is accepted - in a PT season if you look at the combined end of season total league stats, they tend to fall in a similar range. Like there will be X total HRs in a season. There average ERA and AVG will be Y and Z. And so on. There have been multiple posts about this. I dont think there is too much dispute about this, since it applies to OOTP single player as well.

So the game generates a baseline of total stats for an entire league season. And then sometimes Mike Trout or whoever has what appears to be an awful season with a seemingly entire year slump. While this Mike Trout might not have a start of the season dice roll, like the devs said, is it not possible that the game sort of adjusts somehow to keep this mike trout having his awful season for most/all of the year in order to stay aligned with the overall league totals that the league has to stay in line with?

I dont know if the league totals are generated at the start of the season or in real time or what. But just thinking about it, it would seem that a figure or narrow range is set at the start of the season and thus what plays out over a season is a result of that.

So if you are following what im saying, its possible that the game somehow aligns/calculates a particular mike trout (or whoever) to have an awful season in order to stay consistent with the leaguewide totals by end of season. Some players MUST have awful seasons in order to keep the leaguewide totals aligned to where they are supposed to be.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

I know the devs said there is no individual player modifier or whatever at the start of the season - and that may be the case. But you have to remember, and this is something that is accepted - in a PT season if you look at the combined end of season total league stats, they tend to fall in a similar range. Like there will be X total HRs in a season. There average ERA and AVG will be Y and Z. And so on. There have been multiple posts about this. I dont think there is too much dispute about this, since it applies to OOTP single player as well.

So the game generates a baseline of total stats for an entire league season. And then sometimes Mike Trout or whoever has what appears to be an awful season with a seemingly entire year slump. While this Mike Trout might not have a start of the season dice roll, like the devs said, is it not possible that the game sort of adjusts somehow to keep this mike trout having his awful season for most/all of the year in order to stay aligned with the overall league totals that the league has to stay in line with?

I dont know if the league totals are generated at the start of the season or in real time or what. But just thinking about it, it would seem that a figure or narrow range is set at the start of the season and thus what plays out over a season is a result of that.

So if you are following what im saying, its possible that the game somehow aligns/calculates a particular mike trout (or whoever) to have an awful season in order to stay consistent with the leaguewide totals by end of season. Some players MUST have awful seasons in order to keep the leaguewide totals aligned to where they are supposed to be.

I believe what you say to be pretty accurate. In all likelihood, the engine runs checks every so often to see where it stands as far as each stats vs league totals and can probably adjust on the fly. It's a fairly common technique used in other game types, namely rpgs (Wizardry clones come to mind where the engine will run a roll and make checks so your characters don't fall too far behind on the hit points threshold, but that's a different genre).


That's why I doubt the only factor at play is Player A's attributes vs Player B's attributes. Yes, their ratings are mighty important, but as you mentioned, league totals need to be met (probably within a certain %variance). Since the league totals are the "hard set rule", the engine can't run solely on pure random numbers...the results still have randomness, but within a structured entity. If it was only running on pure randomness, I'm guessing we would have seen a lot more weird stuff than we have so far, because true randomness is unpredictable.


That does not mean things are scripted from the get go and I don't believe that at all.

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by max venerabel

I've noticed that a handful of players on my team each year seem to be in year long slumps, playing well below their career average. And, conversely, a few each year play better than expected.



The likelihood of this being random seems rather small, since ratings for PP players are static and landing six (for instance) month long slumps in a row would be statistically unlikely. I'm wondering if there may be a pre-season dice roll of some sort that prompts good or bad seasons for players.


If this is the case, it would make a lot of sense to keep a strong reserve roster, identify slumping players a quarter of the way into the season and get them off the field.


Not a strategy I've personally employed much, but I often look back at the season's individual stats on a Sunday and wish I had.


Anyone put any thought into it?

No. I'm still stumped on how in a league most all pitchers under perform & all hitters under perform. Seems like if one is bad other should be good. but for a 99 Kershaw to be carrying a 5.50 era throughout seasons....underwhelming

[Kushiel]

99 Kershaw is a very underwhelming card in the grand scheme of PT. Sorry but I would dump him and get a low 90 starter than has some movement.

[pappyzan]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

I know the devs said there is no individual player modifier or whatever at the start of the season - and that may be the case. But you have to remember, and this is something that is accepted - in a PT season if you look at the combined end of season total league stats, they tend to fall in a similar range. Like there will be X total HRs in a season. There average ERA and AVG will be Y and Z. And so on. There have been multiple posts about this. I dont think there is too much dispute about this, since it applies to OOTP single player as well.

So the game generates a baseline of total stats for an entire league season. And then sometimes Mike Trout or whoever has what appears to be an awful season with a seemingly entire year slump. While this Mike Trout might not have a start of the season dice roll, like the devs said, is it not possible that the game sort of adjusts somehow to keep this mike trout having his awful season for most/all of the year in order to stay aligned with the overall league totals that the league has to stay in line with?

I dont know if the league totals are generated at the start of the season or in real time or what. But just thinking about it, it would seem that a figure or narrow range is set at the start of the season and thus what plays out over a season is a result of that.

So if you are following what im saying, its possible that the game somehow aligns/calculates a particular mike trout (or whoever) to have an awful season in order to stay consistent with the leaguewide totals by end of season. Some players MUST have awful seasons in order to keep the leaguewide totals aligned to where they are supposed to be.

Yep good point, I always forget about the league totals/modifiers.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

I know the devs said there is no individual player modifier or whatever at the start of the season - and that may be the case. But you have to remember, and this is something that is accepted - in a PT season if you look at the combined end of season total league stats, they tend to fall in a similar range. Like there will be X total HRs in a season. There average ERA and AVG will be Y and Z. And so on. There have been multiple posts about this. I dont think there is too much dispute about this, since it applies to OOTP single player as well.

So the game generates a baseline of total stats for an entire league season. And then sometimes Mike Trout or whoever has what appears to be an awful season with a seemingly entire year slump. While this Mike Trout might not have a start of the season dice roll, like the devs said, is it not possible that the game sort of adjusts somehow to keep this mike trout having his awful season for most/all of the year in order to stay aligned with the overall league totals that the league has to stay in line with?

I dont know if the league totals are generated at the start of the season or in real time or what. But just thinking about it, it would seem that a figure or narrow range is set at the start of the season and thus what plays out over a season is a result of that.

So if you are following what im saying, its possible that the game somehow aligns/calculates a particular mike trout (or whoever) to have an awful season in order to stay consistent with the leaguewide totals by end of season. Some players MUST have awful seasons in order to keep the leaguewide totals aligned to where they are supposed to be.

I highly doubt, however, that any specific player is targeted - it would be applied across the board equally to all players. Which then means the variances your taking issue with at the start can't be caused by this variable unless Trout was already having a bad year...

Look, I've had Mike Trout (since he was mentioned in this and other posts) for almost 5 seasons now - starting in Bronze and currently (134 games) in Gold. His WAR has been 11.0, 8.6, 10.7, 8.9, and 6.5. His OBP .447, .408, .454, .423, and .430. His SLG .607, .512, .566, .517, and .468.

He's been a model of consistency for me. Yet, others have stated they can't understand how he can sometimes put up bad numbers. That tells me that next season, he might have a crap year for me - and I don't see anything wrong with that. If nothing else, my experience with him shows consistency IS possible.

[KleineBiere]

Single season simulation


30 identical players - player development, injuries, etc. disabled - dh enabled in nl

[Orcin]

What season was simulated... 2018 MLB? The spread in BABIP is pretty surprising.

[max venerabel]

Originally Posted by KleineBiere

Single season simulation


30 identical players - player development, injuries, etc. disabled - dh enabled in nl

Are parks MLB parks, or all the same park? Are teams (apart from the identical player) different?

Still a pretty crazy spread...

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

I highly doubt, however, that any specific player is targeted - it would be applied across the board equally to all players. Which then means the variances your taking issue with at the start can't be caused by this variable unless Trout was already having a bad year...

Look, I've had Mike Trout (since he was mentioned in this and other posts) for almost 5 seasons now - starting in Bronze and currently (134 games) in Gold. His WAR has been 11.0, 8.6, 10.7, 8.9, and 6.5. His OBP .447, .408, .454, .423, and .430. His SLG .607, .512, .566, .517, and .468.

He's been a model of consistency for me. Yet, others have stated they can't understand how he can sometimes put up bad numbers. That tells me that next season, he might have a crap year for me - and I don't see anything wrong with that. If nothing else, my experience with him shows consistency IS possible.

Its not so much that they are "targeted" outright, but if all else equal, and all the other players in the league are having their X Y Z such and such season - there is no real room for improvement for your player who is doing poorly from the start (whether its mike trout or the worst player on your roster) unless the game adjusts to make one of those other players in the league start to have a much worse season because ultimately these things have to balance out to the annual league totals.

So, in this hypothetical mike trout example we keep coming back to - if Mike Trout starts the season off poorly - the only way he can improve over the course of the season is if another player declines (thus keeping the equilibrium/overall annual totals in line with where they need to be). So in essence, Mike Trout's hypothetical improvement is not necessarily based on Mike Trout's ratings, but rather on the performance of other players in the league. Or perhaps all these factors work together. But it seems theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for Mike Trout's ratings alone to improve his performance, because some other player HAS to decline in performance elsewhere. If other players performance doesnt decline, then mike trout's cant improve.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Its not so much that they are "targeted" outright, but if all else equal, and all the other players in the league are having their X Y Z such and such season - there is no real room for improvement for your player who is doing poorly from the start (whether its mike trout or the worst player on your roster) unless the game adjusts to make one of those other players in the league start to have a much worse season because ultimately these things have to balance out to the annual league totals.

So, in this hypothetical mike trout example we keep coming back to - if Mike Trout starts the season off poorly - the only way he can improve over the course of the season is if another player declines (thus keeping the equilibrium/overall annual totals in line with where they need to be). So in essence, Mike Trout's hypothetical improvement is not necessarily based on Mike Trout's ratings, but rather on the performance of other players in the league. Or perhaps all these factors work together. But it seems theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for Mike Trout's ratings alone to improve his performance, because some other player HAS to decline in performance elsewhere. If other players performance doesnt decline, then mike trout's cant improve.

I don't agree. If the league is running too "rich" or too "lean", adjustments are made to the "league totals" to pull everyone up or down - not players. In that scenario, Trout can get hot even if the league totals are pulled down.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

I don't agree. If the league is running too "rich" or too "lean", adjustments are made to the "league totals" to pull everyone up or down - not players.

But is this a fact? or an opinion? I dont think we ultimately know. Does literally every play do better all of a sudden? or every player worse all of a sudden? or do individual/smaller batches of players? Who knows, but it seems less likely that ALL players adjust rather than individuals or smaller groups, since its simply easier to make adjustments with less variables in play.

What would be easier to adjust to reach a desired outcome? 10 variables simultaneously or 750 variables simultaneously?

Ultimately, we will probably never know unless the developers decide to provide some insight.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

But is this a fact? or an opinion? I dont think we ultimately know. Does literally every play do better all of a sudden? or every player worse all of a sudden? or do individual/smaller batches of players? Who knows, but it seems less likely that ALL players adjust rather than individuals or smaller groups, since its simply easier to make adjustments with less variables in play.

What would be easier to adjust to reach a desired outcome? 10 variables simultaneously or 750 variables simultaneously?

Ultimately, we will probably never know unless the developers decide to provide some insight.

Of course not every player does better or every player do worse. It's spread out, some up and some down. Why would only certain players be 'chosen' to do better or worse?

And when it comes to what is easier, I'm sure it doesn't matter because it's computers making the calculations, not people with calculators and dice.

Developers have given insight and have denied everything you're suggesting. No one player is ever chosen to be better or worse. No player has a hidden hot or cold streak rating. No player has a hidden clutch rating.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Of course not every player does better or every player do worse. It's spread out, some up and some down. Why would only certain players be 'chosen' to do better or worse?

And when it comes to what is easier, I'm sure it doesn't matter because it's computers making the calculations, not people with calculators and dice.

Developers have given insight and have denied everything you're suggesting. No one player is ever chosen to be better or worse. No player has a hidden hot or cold streak rating. No player has a hidden clutch rating.

Maybe i mis read whathe meant, but he said "everyone" - as in all players.

Im not suggesting any of those things you mentioned are coded into the game, im just saying the game itself HAS to choose people to keep down/have bad years/etc, if there are other players having good years/hot/whatever. There is literally no other choice because annual league totals are relatively static. That doesnt mean its an intentional choice/dice roll for X player/whatever, it just means its a natural order of things because the annual totals are set in stone, so to speak, and thus all simulation has to align with that.

[Abnerdoubleday]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Of course not every player does better or every player do worse. It's spread out, some up and some down. Why would only certain players be 'chosen' to do better or worse?

And when it comes to what is easier, I'm sure it doesn't matter because it's computers making the calculations, not people with calculators and dice.

Developers have given insight and have denied everything you're suggesting. No one player is ever chosen to be better or worse. No player has a hidden hot or cold streak rating. No player has a hidden clutch rating.

I don't think the developers ever did give a definitive answer as to whether morale is off. If morale is on, it would probably play a fairly significant role in variability