Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Out of the Park Baseball 19 > Perfect Team

Perfect Team Discover the new amazing online league competition & card collecting mode of OOTP!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-06-2018, 09:30 AM   #1
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
1975 Catfish Hunter

23 game winner, 328 IP, 248 hits, whip of 1.01. And finished 2nd in the CY Young voting. Yet in the game he is a mere 73. In about 15 starts in pre season had a era of about 5 and a half for me. And so far this season has a ERA of over 7 in 5 starts.


Anyone else have Hunter having any luck? Seems to me a lot of historical players are underrated. Maybe this is done on purpose to create a following and interest on current players ,I'm not sure.

Nevertheless enjoying the mode and you have created a gem.
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 09:35 AM   #2
PDHitman
Major Leagues
 
PDHitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fernandina Beach, FL
Posts: 332
Scoman, I agree w/ you. I dont have specifics like you posted for Catfish, but I definitely feel that there are MANY current players that are over rated and MANY historic players that are under. Curious about 2019 during the MLB season....will players ratings change week to week via live update?
__________________
____________________

Paul
RDBL Commish/Baltimore
RDBL Website

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." -Yogi
PDHitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 09:48 AM   #3
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
He did give up 25 dingers that year and 374 for his career.
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 10:01 AM   #4
Markus Heinsohn
Developer OOTP
 
Markus Heinsohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,709
Ratings for historical players are normalized & park- & era-adjusted. However, the card value of historical cards do not use the same formula as live cards for technical reasons. So, Catfish may actually be undervalued and he could perform better than his card value indicates. You just had bad luck with him so far.
Markus Heinsohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 10:01 AM   #5
Markus Heinsohn
Developer OOTP
 
Markus Heinsohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDHitman View Post
Curious about 2019 during the MLB season....will players ratings change week to week via live update?
Yes!
Markus Heinsohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 10:03 AM   #6
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn View Post
Ratings for historical players are normalized & park- & era-adjusted. However, the card value of historical cards do not use the same formula as live cards for technical reasons. So, Catfish may actually be undervalued and he could perform better than his card value indicates. You just had bad luck with him so far.
well it is about a 20 start sample size,so more than a few.
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 10:05 AM   #7
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn View Post
However, the card value of historical cards do not use the same formula as live cards for technical reasons.
Care to elaborate on that?
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 10:58 AM   #8
Markus Heinsohn
Developer OOTP
 
Markus Heinsohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoman View Post
Care to elaborate on that?
No. I won't bore you with the details. In the end, card values will always be subjective, so it's fun to find underrated cards...
Markus Heinsohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 01:01 PM   #9
sansterre
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 248
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoman View Post
23 game winner, 328 IP, 248 hits, whip of 1.01. And finished 2nd in the CY Young voting. Yet in the game he is a mere 73. In about 15 starts in pre season had a era of about 5 and a half for me. And so far this season has a ERA of over 7 in 5 starts.


Anyone else have Hunter having any luck? Seems to me a lot of historical players are underrated. Maybe this is done on purpose to create a following and interest on current players ,I'm not sure.

Nevertheless enjoying the mode and you have created a gem.
Just remember that OOTP runs a DIPS engine, so it doesn't care about hits except as relates to the performance of the defense.

Catfish Hunter in 1975 compared to AL Average:

FIP: 3.30 vs. 3.82
HR/9: 0.7 vs. 0.8
K/9: 4.9 vs. 4.9
BB/9: 2.3 vs 3.5

Short version? Catfish Hunter in 1975 was a good pitcher, half a run better per 9 than league average. But his stuff was league average, his Movement was just above league average; only his control is clearly much better than league average. And control is the worst attribute of the 3 to be good at. 73 is not unreasonable.

1975 Catfish Hunter benefited from a good defense and a lot of luck in his BABIP. If you're indignant about how OOTP sees Hunter, don't ever look at any Oriole pitchers from the 60s and early 70s; take out the super-defense behind them and suddenly they look pretty weak.
sansterre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 02:20 PM   #10
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sansterre View Post
Just remember that OOTP runs a DIPS engine, so it doesn't care about hits except as relates to the performance of the defense.

Catfish Hunter in 1975 compared to AL Average:

FIP: 3.30 vs. 3.82
HR/9: 0.7 vs. 0.8
K/9: 4.9 vs. 4.9
BB/9: 2.3 vs 3.5

Short version? Catfish Hunter in 1975 was a good pitcher, half a run better per 9 than league average. But his stuff was league average, his Movement was just above league average; only his control is clearly much better than league average. And control is the worst attribute of the 3 to be good at. 73 is not unreasonable.

1975 Catfish Hunter benefited from a good defense and a lot of luck in his BABIP. If you're indignant about how OOTP sees Hunter, don't ever look at any Oriole pitchers from the 60s and early 70s; take out the super-defense behind them and suddenly they look pretty weak.
I'm not indignant at all, simple pointing it out. And now your telling me Mcnally, Palmer, Cuellar are weak...Okie Dokie....
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 03:29 PM   #11
sansterre
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 248
Blog Entries: 2
Yeah, I oversold that a bit. Weak compared to their defense-included numbers.

Palmer looks like a golden god with his defense, showing 10 times in the top 5 of ERA. But compare that with only 5 times in the top 10 of FIP and it's clear that while he was a very good pitcher, he was never the ace that he seemed. He was a very good pitcher who played with a great offense and an all-time defense, and those things combined to get him a lot of wins and a very low ERA.

McNally was solid, putting up FIPs moderately lower than his league environment. BR's WAR gives him one 5+ WAR season and another two above 3 WAR, and that's with using his ERA not his FIP; not super inspiring. His only claim to greatness is his high numbers of wins from 68 to 71, and again, great offense and great defense helped with that a lot.

Cuellar actually may have the best claim of the bunch. Not to be that guy, but he has better K/9 than Palmer, better BB/9 than Palmer and the same HR/9.

These are three good pitchers, three 2.5 - 4 WAR guys who anyone would be happy to have. But they aren't the monsters their Win totals make them look like.

Anyhow, this is a long way of restating that players that play on great teams with great defenses tend to look much worse with DIPS stats (as OOTP does) than they do if considered with Wins and ERA.
sansterre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 03:35 PM   #12
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Meanwhile after 7 starts Catfish has a era of over 7 .

Zero quality starts...but he will come around right Markus and Luke?
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 03:51 PM   #13
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
You guys might want to take look at historical starting pitchers around your league,most under preform...I think some of you might be in denial about the accuracy of the historical starting pitchers ratings compared to current and or live.

Last edited by Scoman; 11-06-2018 at 03:53 PM.
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 04:03 PM   #14
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoman View Post
You guys might want to take look at historical starting pitchers around your league,most under preform...I think some of you might be in denial about the accuracy of the historical starting pitchers ratings compared to current and or live.
And as I say that Dennis Martinez throws a maddux for me,lol
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 05:00 PM   #15
One Post Wonder
All Star Reserve
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 538
Most of the pre-1980 players are awful TBH. The older they are, the worse they are.

While older players might be adjusted for the era regarding batting, they're not for fielding at the very least. I've got Gil Hodges, 1950. Gil was a borderline hall of famer, at the start of his peak in 1950 and had the reputation as being a top defensive 1b. My card is rated 60, and Gil plays defense like someone I'm trying to convert from the outfield.

I've got a few old cards like that. They might have value since people know their names. They always catch my eye. But as players they're niche performers at best.

I'm not really complaining, just pointing out the obvious here. If those players were all rated high, we'd have a completely top heavy game. Plus I'm sure the MLB players association wouldn't like that most modern players are being rated as drek compared to the pre-union stars. But you can't tell me they're rated on the same level as the modern players.

Also with pitchers it seems like I can pretty much order my pitching staff by 'stuff' in descending order and watch the ERAs get higher as I look down. I usually play historical leagues and it looks like stuff is emphasized far more than I'm used to. I don't normally like those 95-45-35 guys but they're my most effective pitchers in this game.

Last edited by One Post Wonder; 11-06-2018 at 05:01 PM.
One Post Wonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 06:22 PM   #16
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Catfishs last start 4ip 10 hits 7 earned runs..he has now started 8 games a whip of 1.74 and a era of 8.04. zero quality starts

So, Catfish may actually be undervalued and he could perform better than his card value indicates. You just had bad luck with him so far.


And remember I started him 15 games in pre season with a era of upwards of 6,so this is far from a small sample size . 23 starts and every indication points at there is something seriously wrong with Catfishs ratings...but hey if your happy with that then so be it. And i will just leave it alone and get rid of him.

Last edited by Scoman; 11-06-2018 at 06:44 PM.
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 06:29 PM   #17
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Post Wonder View Post
Most of the pre-1980 players are awful TBH. The older they are, the worse they are.

While older players might be adjusted for the era regarding batting, they're not for fielding at the very least. I've got Gil Hodges, 1950. Gil was a borderline hall of famer, at the start of his peak in 1950 and had the reputation as being a top defensive 1b. My card is rated 60, and Gil plays defense like someone I'm trying to convert from the outfield.

I've got a few old cards like that. They might have value since people know their names. They always catch my eye. But as players they're niche performers at best.

I'm not really complaining, just pointing out the obvious here. If those players were all rated high, we'd have a completely top heavy game. Plus I'm sure the MLB players association wouldn't like that most modern players are being rated as drek compared to the pre-union stars. But you can't tell me they're rated on the same level as the modern players.

Also with pitchers it seems like I can pretty much order my pitching staff by 'stuff' in descending order and watch the ERAs get higher as I look down. I usually play historical leagues and it looks like stuff is emphasized far more than I'm used to. I don't normally like those 95-45-35 guys but they're my most effective pitchers in this game.
Thanks for your honesty and non fanboying
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 06:35 PM   #18
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Post Wonder View Post
Most of the pre-1980 players are awful TBH. The older they are, the worse they are.

While older players might be adjusted for the era regarding batting, they're not for fielding at the very least. I've got Gil Hodges, 1950. Gil was a borderline hall of famer, at the start of his peak in 1950 and had the reputation as being a top defensive 1b. My card is rated 60, and Gil plays defense like someone I'm trying to convert from the outfield.

I've got a few old cards like that. They might have value since people know their names. They always catch my eye. But as players they're niche performers at best.

I'm not really complaining, just pointing out the obvious here. If those players were all rated high, we'd have a completely top heavy game. Plus I'm sure the MLB players association wouldn't like that most modern players are being rated as drek compared to the pre-union stars. But you can't tell me they're rated on the same level as the modern players.

Also with pitchers it seems like I can pretty much order my pitching staff by 'stuff' in descending order and watch the ERAs get higher as I look down. I usually play historical leagues and it looks like stuff is emphasized far more than I'm used to. I don't normally like those 95-45-35 guys but they're my most effective pitchers in this game.
If you were a player that was a perennial all star or HOFer you should be rated as such no matter what era your were in, IMO,Not understanding the reasoning behind watering down most historical guys.Why include them if your not going to rate them what they deserve .

Last edited by Scoman; 11-06-2018 at 06:54 PM.
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 06:56 PM   #19
Fyrestorm3
Hall Of Famer
 
Fyrestorm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,928
I think the issue stems from the fact that there aren't cards for every historical player.

We have all the Live players, which gives us a decent balance of high-rated cards vs. low-rated cards, the same balance you would get from a standard 2018 MLB setup. But then the historical cards get added in. And they obviously can't put every single historical player into the game, that would inflate the card collection way too much and desaturate the market. So they have to pick and choose - besides the Unsung Heroes, we've got Rookie Sensations, Record Breakers, and Historical All-Stars (and probably one or two more categories I'm missing)... all of which are naturally going to be good to great players. You don't get remembered for being a scrub, after all.

If all those cards came in rated Gold or Diamond, as would befit our perceptions of the players, the entire card base would become insanely top-heavy, and would this time oversaturate the market with repetitive Bronze and Iron cards, since all of the historical cards would then be rarer pulls. So the only option left is to undervalue some of the historical cards to ensure that the balance between the rankings remains untouched.

Honestly I don't think this is a bad thing, it was really cool to be able to snag a 64-overall Lou Brock early, who's currently stealing bases like a felon for me. But I will agree it can be a tad off-putting.
Fyrestorm3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2018, 06:57 PM   #20
Scoman
All Star Starter
 
Scoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: heath ohio
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Post Wonder View Post

Also with pitchers it seems like I can pretty much order my pitching staff by 'stuff' in descending order and watch the ERAs get higher as I look down. I usually play historical leagues and it looks like stuff is emphasized far more than I'm used to. I don't normally like those 95-45-35 guys but they're my most effective pitchers in this game.

I hear you, Ive been a strictly historical player myself.
Scoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments