Development in Hitorical

[sprague]

Thought about posting this thread for a while- so thought I would pass on an attempt i will try.

That it to put development on- yet use recalc. Why do that you say?
A problem I have had at time with historical comes with players in the DB who have thier last season a great one- particularily a pitcher who ends his carrer at 25
he will have that last season as his ratings until he retires, which might be at 42 with 325 wins. the neutralized db's have stopped this for a few players but not all.

the other choice is to "retire players per history" but it is nice too to have players play a bit longer at times than real life. hence the way to get around it might be to have development on.

I am going to test player development at .200 (so players would develop very slow during the season) aging at .500 so a player will have some decline, but a good 37 or 38 year old player who had real stats that year wont get hurt too bad

what that will mean is some fluctuations during specific seasons, but any player with real stats will get recalced and be back to what he is supposed to be at.

I am going to auto sim out a history and see how it looked by the numbers, esp for players that tended to play way too long for my liking
will get back in a day or 2 with the results

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by sprague

Thought about posting this thread for a while- so thought I would pass on an attempt i will try.

That it to put development on- yet use recalc. Why do that you say?
A problem I have had at time with historical comes with players in the DB who have thier last season a great one- particularily a pitcher who ends his carrer at 25
he will have that last season as his ratings until he retires, which might be at 42 with 325 wins. the neutralized db's have stopped this for a few players but not all.

the other choice is to "retire players per history" but it is nice too to have players play a bit longer at times than real life. hence the way to get around it might be to have development on.

I am going to test player development at .200 (so players would develop very slow during the season) aging at .500 so a player will have some decline, but a good 37 or 38 year old player who had real stats that year wont get hurt too bad

what that will mean is some fluctuations during specific seasons, but any player with real stats will get recalced and be back to what he is supposed to be at.

I am going to auto sim out a history and see how it looked by the numbers, esp for players that tended to play way too long for my liking
will get back in a day or 2 with the results

VanillaGorilla has been using this method for his random debut hall of fame sims. He has threads detailing these in both the 13 and 14 historical sections.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by sprague

A problem I have had at time with historical comes with players in the DB who have thier last season a great one- particularily a pitcher who ends his carrer at 25 he will have that last season as his ratings until he retires, which might be at 42 with 325 wins. the neutralized db's have stopped this for a few players but not all.

Koufax is a guy who I've noticed often dominates well into the 1970's. I've even seen him eventually convert to an effective relief pitcher into the early 80's, when he's in his early 40's... That said, my understanding is that if you have retire according to history off, the OOTP development engine will kick in to one degree or another, regardless of your settings, for those players who play beyond their real-life playing years. This is why Koufax doesn't always dominate into the 70's... I could be wrong, though - and there is likely more to the story. Plus, my experience is based on v12 and earlier v's.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by thehef

Koufax is a guy who I've noticed often dominates well into the 1970's. I've even seen him eventually convert to an effective relief pitcher into the early 80's, when he's in his early 40's... That said, my understanding is that if you have retire according to history off, the OOTP development engine will kick in to one degree or another, regardless of your settings, for those players who play beyond their real-life playing years. This is why Koufax doesn't always dominate into the 70's... I could be wrong, though - and there is likely more to the story. Plus, my experience is based on v12 and earlier v's.

If you have development turned off, it is off.....always and forever......you really can't play with it off and NOT have the retire when they really did option turned on......plyers with no stats at the time of recalc will just keep the ratings they had before...always and forever....

[sprague]

Originally Posted by Questdog

If you have development turned off, it is off.....always and forever......you really can't play with it off and NOT have the retire when they really did option turned on......plyers with no stats at the time of recalc will just keep the ratings they had before...always and forever....

yes this was the very problem that i was looking to address-
but not have the developement too high that will make the in-season stats wacky- what a 1.000 rating across the board will do, some guys might have some big swings in the season

a reminder is that talent modifier has to be 1, to be sure no stars get wacked with a major drop potential during a season, thus have a big swing, or get traded because the ai thinks they have become terrible, when the next recalc sets everything back to normal

So far I simmed through 1929 and the results have been quite good actually. The .200 development modifiers as i see should be much much lower to be sure those first year players especially don't become great by may. maybe a .050 modifier. the aging modifiers were ok, but it would take some work. i am now thinking .400 might be better. players once their last season is done will begin to decline, just at a nice somewhat smooth pace.

I am thinking this test will be leading in the right direction

What has been a problem though is the Modifiers. They tend to be too low, especially in the 1900-1930 range., batting stats are way below what they should be. i know what the modifiers are meant to do- i think- so i know 1.000 is not really the best things to have accross the board, but what i think will have to be done is an adjustment each year to get them to stay closer to 1.000 (Ps i tried putting 1.000 in a modifier once, it never changed again, as if once the game sees 1.000 in a modifier it thinks you no longer want them updated). But i also tend to find that totals in the 1940-60 range is also a bit low than where they should be, even in some cases with certain modifiers over 1.000 particularly in home runs where i find mays and aaron never come close to their historical totals- so i will play with that too.
will do out another test league- will post results in the dynasty forum to check out how things are going

anyone else who has tested this area, drop a note, curious to hear how you are trying to get the historical game playing at it most realistic level
cheers

[majesty95]

I thought the point of importing the historical settings was for all this to be done for us? If we have to do this to get a historical to play right then it almost seems pointless

[sprague]

Originally Posted by majesty95

I thought the point of importing the historical settings was for all this to be done for us? If we have to do this to get a historical to play right then it almost seems pointless

the game certainly plays better than it did back in say version 8 or 9. but i have stopped playing historical for a long time. ootp is a terrific fictional league generator, or for the mlb quickstart, for after the first year it basicaly become a fictional league
but for getting historical to get the stats and players to perform realistically in a given year is still a bit challenging- but for some reason i got up the urge to dust of the historical game and look into how it is playing and see if i can come up with a couple of tweeks to make it perform more realistic

[majesty95]

Kind of disheartening as that is all I really like to play I guess if you don't expect perfection than they are serviceable

[thehef]

If recalc is on and development is on - but randomness level (or whatever it's called) set to 1 - doesn't that pretty much solve the problem? My understanding is that players won't change much under that setting (as on a scale of 1 to 100, 1 is "almost off").

And does that setting solve the issue of a post-'66 Koufax keeping his same ratings? Won't the OOTP development engine kick in for Sandy from '67 on?

[Charlie Hough]

majesty95, you're fine if you simply choose the option to have players retire when they did in real life. Then there's no issue and no need to reason to use development or complicate things.

[JohnHoward]

I think 12 was the first really solid and most stable historical platform and while I like the innovations of 13 and 14, I still use 12 for my historical replays. If you prepare well for each season and take a hands-on approach, it is very satisfying. Historical with real transactions, real line-ups, and real schedules is more challenging than the so-called "fictional historical" approach, at least for me.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

I think 12 was the first really solid and most stable historical platform and while I like the innovations of 13 and 14, I still use 12 for my historical replays. If you prepare well for each season and take a hands-on approach, it is very satisfying. Historical with real transactions, real line-ups, and real schedules is more challenging than the so-called "fictional historical" approach, at least for me.

I'm on v12 and play mostly historical, and am thinking of moving to 14. So I'm curious as to what about 14 you find less stable for historical replays.

Re real txns & schedules, I totally agree. For me, though, I've never even tried real lineups because the idea of playing games with a roster significantly greater than 25 players seems odd, as does the idea of, for example, a star being on the bench for the first 50 games because in real life he missed the first 50 games due to injury... But hey, that's the beauty of OOTP: You can do it any way you want it ;-)

[sprague]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

majesty95, you're fine if you simply choose the option to have players retire when they did in real life. Then there's no issue and no need to reason to use development or complicate things.

but that would only leave one way to play historical- exactly as is

what if i want sandy kaufax to play a few more years..or not have all the guys in 1903 retire at 26 when there is still lots of possible baseball ahead for them

my fav way to play historical is with the spritze hs database, with all the negro players and asians, as it gives so many opportunites for possability- but again the player- say zaza harvey good example can play to 1915 as a .345 hitter, which is just unrealistic

so i am just looking to see how other options can be done, so all of us have various options to play, yet still have a good realistic playing experience

[JohnHoward]

Yeah, I guess what I meant was more stable than 9 or 11 in terms of not as many outlier type of performances and smoother transitions between seasons and such. I have not tried historical on 14, but I am sure it is fine, I just don't need all the financials, international complex, etc. so why not stay with 12? I like thinking of 12 as "historical OOTP" and I play 11 as "fictional OOTP", so for me 14 is "present-day MLB OOTP". I like them all and I like to keep playing the older versions.

You have to be rigorous about the roster adjustments and transactions to keep the rosters within 25 players, which is easier after 1966. I play with a 30 man roster limit and sometimes I have teams with 26 or 27 active, but most of the time I can figure out who the actual 25 were. Then there were some teams, like the Reds, who only seemed to use 22 or 23 players, so there would be some rule 5 guy like Jimmie Schaffer who was on the active roster all season but only played in 4 or 5 games at the most. For me it is a lesson in baseball history so I like doing all the roster manipulation. I can understand why others may not be attracted to that dimension of the replay.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by sprague

So far I simmed through 1929 and the results have been quite good actually. The .200 development modifiers as i see should be much much lower to be sure those first year players especially don't become great by may. maybe a .050 modifier. the aging modifiers were ok, but it would take some work. i am now thinking .400 might be better. players once their last season is done will begin to decline, just at a nice somewhat smooth pace.

seems to me you'd want the growth modifiers at near 0......you NEVER want anyone growing......

Also, I think it might work to only have the development engine on during the off-season.....of course, then you'd want the decline factors doubled, since they are only on half a year.....this would kee p any fluctuations from happening during the season.....

[sprague]

Originally Posted by Questdog

seems to me you'd want the growth modifiers at near 0......you NEVER want anyone growing......

Also, I think it might work to only have the development engine on during the off-season.....of course, then you'd want the decline factors doubled, since they are only on half a year.....this would kee p any fluctuations from happening during the season.....

right quest, i dont want them growing. they will already grow as they did in real life via the recalc. otherwise ruth or cobb might be monsters in their rookie year.
the only thing i am trying to deal with is players who no longer have seasons on their database, and their last season was great so can be great for 14 more years. so i want to age those players in a somewhat fair way- yet not have the young players grow- they will be as the stats tell us for that season.

i thought too about turning development off during the off season- to not hurt older players who have a real season- say older cobb or a late year bonds...but that was too much extra i thought so i figure just let it run. an old player like that i can take a peek at before the season starts and make sure there was not really a bigger drop

i am in another test run and am up to 1910. it is working almost as good as i could have hoped. only ed delhanty for some reason took a LONG time to devalue his great stats- but then again he was a superstar before he died so whos'se to say.
will post a thread on it once i get up to 1919