Robinson Cano in OOTP 14

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by injury log

The game's attitude to ratings scales was something that preoccupied me a bit early in beta this year. I started a thread about it in beta, and I've just bumped that, so it should be at the top of the pile there if you're interested in reading it.

I don't think there really is a coherent design approach to ratings - or at least, there isn't any longer. It's possible there was ages ago, but the entire pitching models and fielding models have since been changed, as have the maps between ratings and performance. There didn't seem much interest on beta in discussing that issue, but I think the game would be a lot more intuitive if it was easier to understand, at a glance, what a '60/100' rating means. It probably should mean 'above average', but in many cases it doesn't.

And... get well soon buddy!

Thanks, my friend. Just a cold, no big deal.

I saw the thread in beta, looks really interesting to me at least, dunno how I missed it. I'll look it over asap, and I'm guessing we'll have lots to discuss once I do.

[VanillaGorilla]

While you beta guys are going over the ratings, please consider what has happened with the aging of fielders and the arbitrary arm requirement instituted for SS.

IRL, 18 players have played 2000 games at SS.

In my just completed league which drafted every player in ML history over the course of 99 seasons, I had zero.

Zilch. Nada. None.

The most games played at SS was 1820. Only that player broke 1800 games.

The 100th player on my SS/G list had 820. The 100th spot IRL is 1143.

I used the default development/aging modifiers along with recalc.

While I certainly applaud the effort to get things more "realistic", the bottom line is that players are being disallowed from playing SS too soon in comparison to RL.

Bill Dahlen played 2133 RL games at SS in spite of the fact that in his ifrst 7 seasons his teams only played 135, 146, 127, 132, 130, 128, and 132 games respectively. All seasons in my league were of the 162 variety.

Tommie Corcoran, a contemporary of Dahlen's, logged 2075 games at SS.

I noticed this because of the HOF Status calculation uses Games at SS and 2B with thresholds of 1800 and 2100 games for getting points in that metric. As I mentioned before, I had a much lower number of MIers getting into the HOF in which I use HOFs as an avenue for entry.

These threshold numbers of 1800 and 2100 were derived from ML history. If virtually no players are reaching these thresholds in a 162 game environment using the default aging setting, then the rate at which players lose their defensive abilities in OOTP and are disqualified from being rated at a MI position needs to be reexamined before any individual player ratings are sporadically altered.

Thank you for taking this into consideration.

[VanillaGorilla]

Following up:

IRL 12 players played 2000 games at 2B. In my completed OOTP14 league, 4 did.

The 100th most games played at 2B IRL is 1116. In my OOTP league it is 819.

Now, surely, my use of Very High injuries had an impact on playing time. However, I did not have the same degree of effect for 1Bmen.

The 100th most games played at 1B for me was 1046. IRL it is 1211.

Taking this rate as a base for what would be the impact of the injury setting above the recommended "high" and normalizing the 100th place 2B figure, we get a figure of 948 vs RL 1116.

For SS my normalized number is 949 vs RL number of 1143.

Again, keep in mind that all of my seasons were 162 games, but my middle IF numbers are way below their RL counterparts.

[Lukas Berger]

Vg, those numbers are bad. Really bad. Glad you bring it up. I definitely share your concern. We'll certainly discuss that.

I will say that unless you have some data that says otherwise, I doubt the arm requirement is the issue, it's only set to 50 or so, very few guys would've been playing SS with arms below 50 even before.

I suspect that your other suggested culprit, the new fielding model as it relates to aging is very likely the problem.

Maybe the very high injuries contributed, but it's my understanding that very high is actually the injury setting that correlates most closely to rl, at least in modern times. So that may be a contributing factor, especially in the Bill Dahlen era, but I wouldn't think it's the biggest culprit.

Would you have any interest in running a quick-sim test league ? One with injuries at normal this time, just as a control so we can make sure the high injuries aren't the issue?

[injury log]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

I used the default development/aging modifiers along with recalc.

I don't play historical leagues, so this question might be totally off-base, but if you're using recalc, does the aging or development model even matter? I thought the point of recalc was that player ratings would evolve in a similar way in OOTP to how players evolved in reality. So if you aren't getting the right number of SS games, it sounds like either fielding ratings aren't being properly recalculated (if I'm understanding correctly how recalc works), or your injury setting is responsible (that actually seems like a very likely explanation to me, incidentally).

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by injury log

if you're using recalc, does the aging or development model even matter?

Oh, good point. It shouldn't.

I have heard tell though, that it's possible to run a hybrid historical league that uses recalc but also allows the development engine to take over once players get past their retirement age, or in years where guys didn't actually play in the majors for one reason or another.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Following up:

IRL 12 players played 2000 games at 2B. In my completed OOTP14 league, 4 did.

The 100th most games played at 2B IRL is 1116. In my OOTP league it is 819.

Now, surely, my use of Very High injuries had an impact on playing time. However, I did not have the same degree of effect for 1Bmen.

The 100th most games played at 1B for me was 1046. IRL it is 1211.

Taking this rate as a base for what would be the impact of the injury setting above the recommended "high" and normalizing the 100th place 2B figure, we get a figure of 948 vs RL 1116.

For SS my normalized number is 949 vs RL number of 1143.

Again, keep in mind that all of my seasons were 162 games, but my middle IF numbers are way below their RL counterparts.

That may be because the AI platoons unnecessarily by switching 2B to SS and sometimes 3B. Check to see how many games they played at other positions. I bet it's more than RL players normally did.

[VanillaGorilla]

Lukas: Sure, I will be happy to put together some test leagues.

InjuryLog: Yes, they do. In v13, using the same setup (but with different injury settings), I had Bobby Murcer play 2654 games at SS. Recalc does not erase the experience gained or skills developed in the simulation. It is one of my favorite aspects of OOTP.

I made these observations at the time:

The only asterisk in my mind regarding position eligibility/skill when using recalc comes from the fact that Murcer DNP due to military service for two seasons, IRL, after his second season. In the absence of data, recalc works from the player dev engine. When RL data returned that was absent of SS data, Murcer still fielded that position, here. If this DNP time affected the operations of the sim, I do not know. What I do know is that using recalc does not lock a player into fielding stats from the season's data that is applied by the recalc.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post3409740

Rich: From what I have seen as I ran this league, it is not an issue of platooning. Middle infielders were just not being played at middle infield positions in the latter half of their careers. This behavior of the AI is markedly different from v13.

[VanillaGorilla]

I have run 20 seasons in v14 using the default injury and fatigue settings. No SS has logged 1700 games. I will continue that chugging overnight, tonight.

I went back to my v13 leagues that I ran the same way for my Random Debut HOF threads.

In the first league, from which the Murcer entry came from, I had 17 players with 2000 games at SS. The 100th highest was 1144.

At 2B I had 9 players with 2000 games. The 100th most was 1145.

Injuries were set to Very Low.

This league started in 1879 and ran through 2012 and used historical evolution.

--------------

In my second league of this type injuries were set to High.

There I had 2 players with 2000 games at SS and the 100th place holder had 886.

At 2B I had 2 players with 2000 games played and the 100th place holder had 863.

This league began in 1973 and ran through 2070. From 2020 trough 2070, the schedule was 158 games.

-----------------------------------

The second base numbers are comparable to what I got in v14, but the SS numbers are higher, even in the High injury environment of the second league.

If anyone wants to replicate my v14 league (as I will continue doing tonight) start in 2004 and run through the 2102 season.

One thing I have learned by doing this is that I really want an i7!

ADD: I set up the leagues with AAA affiliates, only, and 5 rds of drafting per season using random debut.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

Seriously underated, or maybe I'm not understanding how the devs rate....

His range and turn double play, should be around 90-95 and his infield Arm should be at least 80.... also his Contact and Gap power should also be in the 70-80 range...

Am I dreaming here?

If you go to commish mode, plug this year (or last years or average of two) stats into the fields and click calculate ratings based on stats. I had to do this with Carlos Gomez, as he was an absolute mess.

As an aside, Cano usually is at the tops of 2B in my league (I restarted after this patch to resolve the 60 day DL issue). In fact, he just signed a 7 year extension 2 days ago.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by braunfullyaccused

If you go to commish mode, plug this year (or last years or average of two) stats into the fields and click calculate ratings based on stats. I had to do this with Carlos Gomez, as he was an absolute mess.

As an aside, Cano usually is at the tops of 2B in my league (I restarted after this patch to resolve the 60 day DL issue). In fact, he just signed a 7 year extension 2 days ago.

I did improve his defensive ratings, how him and around 3-4 top second baseman have around 90 ratings as 2B.

The other player I found to be completely wrong is Davis 1B from Baltimore.... his hitting ratings are flat out wrong. If I remember correctly he starts with ~50 contact and ~60 power.....basically almost the same as Jesus Montero, which is a joke.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

The other player I found to be completely wrong is Davis 1B from Baltimore.... his hitting ratings are flat out wrong. If I remember correctly he starts with ~50 contact and ~60 power.....basically almost the same as Jesus Montero, which is a joke.

I agree Crush Davis' power could be increased a little, but I think his contact rating is spot on. Maybe increase his eye/discipline but keep his avoid k's where it is?

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

I agree Crush Davis' power could be increased a little, but I think his contact rating is spot on. Maybe increase his eye/discipline but keep his avoid k's where it is?

I actually would say his contact should be just a tad higher... his eye/k are high lol... i think he leads the league in SO. But his power should be at least in the upper 70's.

Thoughts?

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

I actually would say his contact should be just a tad higher... his eye/k are high lol... i think he leads the league in SO. But his power should be at least in the upper 70's.

Thoughts?

My league is in 2014 so maybe my ratings are different then yours. But to see him in the minors for the entire year in my league does make me a little sad as I am a Chris Davis fan.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

My league is in 2014 so maybe my ratings are different then yours. But to see him in the minors for the entire year in my league does make me a little sad as I am a Chris Davis fan.

I agree... we're talking about one of the prime sluggers in the game, that's nuts.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

I agree... we're talking about one of the prime sluggers in the game, that's nuts.

Would you have described Davis as one of the prime sluggers in the game prior to this season?

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Would you have described Davis as one of the prime sluggers in the game prior to this season?

He certainly look promising last year and still 26/27 years old.... he looks like a real deal to me. But I agree, I wouldn't have said that last year just like I would have never thought Bautista would have a monster year in 2010 and 2011 after the underwhelming early years he had..... I think every player has a breakout year and to me Davis looks like he's going to have a few 40HR years... I guess we'll see.

[Lukas Berger]

The hitting ratings for MLB players are set at the beginning of the year according to BP's PECOTA projection system. So if you have an issue with the batting ratings, talk to BP

The ratings for a lot of guys like Davis, who had much better or worse years than BP had projected, were edited along with a ton of other improvements and updates, and we released those rosters as a mod. You can find those rosters here, if you haven't already seen them.

With Davis, you've got to realize that the guy had nearly played his way out of any chance at an MLB career due to his major, major issues with making contact.

His 2012 was decent, but not especially great, and his previous years were a disaster.

Even this year he struck out 199 times in 584 ab's. Last year 169 times in 515 ab's.

So there's really no way to argue his contact ratings should be very good at all, even for this year. And if you look at his entire career there's even less of a case for him to have particularly good contact ratings.

This year was a career year outlier for him. There's nothing in his track record to suggest he'll be able to sustain this production. Of course he could be able to do so, like Jose Bautista did after his breakout year, but looking at things historically there are 10 Brady Andersons for every Jose Bautista. It's hard to feel any degree of certainty that Davis is most similar to Bautista. The odds are he's more like Anderson.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

The hitting ratings for MLB players are set at the beginning of the year according to BP's PECOTA projection system. So if you have an issue with the batting ratings, talk to BP

The ratings for a lot of guys like Davis, who had much better or worse years than BP had projected, were edited along with a ton of other improvements and updates, and we released those rosters as a mod. You can find those rosters here, if you haven't already seen them.

With Davis, you've got to realize that the guy had nearly played his way out of any chance at an MLB career due to his major, major issues with making contact.

His 2012 was decent, but not especially great, and his previous years were a disaster.

Even this year he struck out 199 times in 584 ab's. Last year 169 times in 515 ab's.

So there's really no way to argue his contact ratings should be very good at all, even for this year. And if you look at his entire career there's even less of a case for him to have particularly good contact ratings.

This year was a career year outlier for him. There's nothing in his track record to suggest he'll be able to sustain this production. Of course he could be able to do so, like Jose Bautista did after his breakout year, but looking at things historically there are 10 Brady Andersons for every Jose Bautista. It's hard to feel any degree of certainty that Davis has more in common with Bautista than Anderson. The odds are he's more like Anderson than Bautista.

Well said. It's just that he looks so good this year, but you're right on with the comments.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

Well said. It's just that he looks so good this year, but you're right on with the comments.

Yeah, he looks incredible. I hope he does keep it up. I'm just not going to bet the farm on it.