Random debut procedure

[Hoiles]

This is a bit of a stat-heavy post. IÂ’m getting into historical random debut this version. As was widely noticed, dead ball era pitchers can have really high stuff ratings, as their modest real-life K totals normalize relative to very low league averages. As random debut appears to normalize them to very high K rates from 2017, you often see pitchers who strike out 350-400 for modern day leagues. For historical leagues, these pitchers keep their high K ratings, but arenÂ’t as dominant as the modifiers adjust the K totals downwards. This leads to some of the high stuff pitchers being overrated. I think this is also the case for sluggers in deadball era random debut leagues; a player like a Thome or McGwire would have high power ratings but wouldnÂ’t be useful as they would hit few home runs anyways due to the era.

Would it be possible to adjust ratings for random debut to the year imported? It seems this is done for historical exhibitions. For example, 1901 Rube Waddell imports to 80 stuff (aka prime Nolan Ryan) with modern settings, to 70 stuff for 1977 settings, and 55 stuff for 1901 settings. However, in a historical random debut league, he always has the same ratings regardless of year, even if he is more dominant in a 2017 league than in a 1901 league.

Even if itÂ’s not possible for OOTP 19, I might put this into suggestions for future versions later.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

This is a bit of a stat-heavy post. IÂ’m getting into historical random debut this version. As was widely noticed, dead ball era pitchers can have really high stuff ratings, as their modest real-life K totals normalize relative to very low league averages. As random debut appears to normalize them to very high K rates from 2017, you often see pitchers who strike out 350-400 for modern day leagues. For historical leagues, these pitchers keep their high K ratings, but arenÂ’t as dominant as the modifiers adjust the K totals downwards. This leads to some of the high stuff pitchers being overrated. I think this is also the case for sluggers in deadball era random debut leagues; a player like a Thome or McGwire would have high power ratings but wouldnÂ’t be useful as they would hit few home runs anyways due to the era.

Would it be possible to adjust ratings for random debut to the year imported? It seems this is done for historical exhibitions. For example, 1901 Rube Waddell imports to 80 stuff (aka prime Nolan Ryan) with modern settings, to 70 stuff for 1977 settings, and 55 stuff for 1901 settings. However, in a historical random debut league, he always has the same ratings regardless of year, even if he is more dominant in a 2017 league than in a 1901 league.

Even if itÂ’s not possible for OOTP 19, I might put this into suggestions for future versions later.

This is one of those things that sounds great in theory, but might be an absolute bear of a nightmare to put into practice. How does this affect those who play straight historicals? I don't have the answer to that, but I wonder if it would be opening Pandora's Box a bit, and have consequences that we can't see from this side of it.

Another thing I have to ask is, why should players who led their respective leagues in strikeouts be downgraded when they're transported by time machine to another era/season (which is basically what random debut does)? Should they not be able to dominate in K in that era too? Take Rube Waddell for example. One of the things that made Waddell great was his ability to strike hitters out at a much higher than average rate than other pitchers of his era. Do we render Waddell a lesser pitcher by taking away that ability? I don't know. We might be, and I'm not sure you want to do that because you make Rube Waddell less Rube Waddellish.

The other thing is, it is possible for you to set your stats and strategy settings to any season you want them to be at regardless of what year you happen to be playing, and keep them there. Don't like the extreme strikeouts and crazy HR totals that the launch angle era is creating? Set your offensive output (and strategy settings if you wish) to a "less crazy" year. I use 1984 for both offensive output and strategy settings for example. This results in 30 HR (maybe ten players a year, when I'm at Normal (OOTP classic) injury settings) being a major accomplishment and 300 K (maybe one a year, but probably much less often than that [I had 14 300+ K seasons, 4 of which were 350+ K seasons, 0 of which were 400+ K seasons] in a 63 season OOTP16 random debut game using 1984 settings) being a major accomplishment. You won't see them all that often in my games, and that makes them special, rather than typical. Is the onus on the game to change so that you get the random debut results that are more acceptable to you, or is the onus on you to work with your settings to get the random debut results you want? Not trying to be a prick, just trying to facilitate conversation and look at this from all angles.

[Hoiles]

Thanks for the well-thought out response actionjackson.

My issue though isn't really with the stat outcomes of random debut (totally fine with league modifiers), more so with the imports, and their effect on the AI in those leagues. Even if you use a deadball-era setting, Waddell will still have really high K ratings (same as in a 2017 league), however he wouldn't be as dominant as his "Stuff" rating would be neutered considerably by the league total modifiers. Regardless, he'd still have "5 star" ratings, and would be drafted ahead of a Mays or Mantle. Similar for a power hitter; a McGwire or Judge's power wouldn't be too useful in a deadball era setting, but they would still have high ratings, taken into account by the AI in drafts, trades, etc. As a result, I think it would be easier to take advantage of the AI in random debut leagues for players from a widely different era.

Though, when you choose to start an "historical exhibition", you do have the option to change the settings, and the players' ratings actually import to the season settings that you choose (or 2017, by default). In a historical exhibition, a Waddell playing a team in 1977 (and set to the 1977) would still be pretty good, but with a "Stuff" rating of 60, he's rated appropriate to his performance. I think it would be great if, eventually, something similar is possible in a historical random debut league.

Probably a nitpick but I'm kind of a statistical purist so just wanted to bring it up.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Thanks for the well-thought out response actionjackson.

My issue though isn't really with the stat outcomes of random debut (totally fine with league modifiers), more so with the imports, and their effect on the AI in those leagues. Even if you use a deadball-era setting, Waddell will still have really high K ratings (same as in a 2017 league), however he wouldn't be as dominant as his "Stuff" rating would be neutered considerably by the league total modifiers. Regardless, he'd still have "5 star" ratings, and would be drafted ahead of a Mays or Mantle. Similar for a power hitter; a McGwire or Judge's power wouldn't be too useful in a deadball era setting, but they would still have high ratings, taken into account by the AI in drafts, trades, etc. As a result, I think it would be easier to take advantage of the AI in random debut leagues for players from a widely different era.

Though, when you choose to start an "historical exhibition", you do have the option to change the settings, and the players' ratings actually import to the season settings that you choose (or 2017, by default). In a historical exhibition, a Waddell playing a team in 1977 (and set to the 1977) would still be pretty good, but with a "Stuff" rating of 60, he's rated appropriate to his performance. I think it would be great if, eventually, something similar is possible in a historical random debut league.

Probably a nitpick but I'm kind of a statistical purist so just wanted to bring it up.

I understand why one would want it, I'm just not sure how it could be done. Markus might be able to figure it out, but would it mess up something else? I don't know. As for draft values for the AI (if you use them), they are done with how the player stacked up against the rest of the players in his debut season. It leads to some funny results in random debut, with guys going ahead of guys they shouldn't be going ahead of. If you don't use draft values, things have a chance of getting even weirder. I saw Babe Ruth taken eighth overall in a historical random debut draft with draft values off. Maybe the teams were drafting on a need basis, but one would think every team could use a Babe Ruth, even if it has to trade a player occupying his position.

As for the nitpicky thing, I wouldn't worry about it. Markus has encouraged it with his ability to assimilate all of our nitpicky requests over the years.

EDIT: I suppose what you're asking is if it's in one part of the game, why can't it be in other parts? That I can't answer for you. That's probably best left up to the genius inventor of this fine game.