|
||||
|
|
Suggestions for Future OOTP Versions Post suggestions for the next version of Out of the Park Baseball here! |
|
Thread Tools |
10-09-2014, 04:33 PM | #1 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,765
|
Historical musts for OOTP 16
I hope the current era players have most of what they want, the last few versions have catered to that demographic, so I'd like to see a concentrated effort to improve historical simulations
I have many more than these, but these, I think are easier to implement Manager tendencies We need Pitching Leveraging, this is how a manager uses his top SP compared to his bottom SP. This is why I have the controversial opinion that Mordecai Brown>>>Lefty Grove. Mordecai was used heavily against the top teams in his league (Pirates and Giants) while being used very little vs the 2nd division (that was Pfeister and Overall's job) while Grove got most of his value from facing the 2nd division. This is a must for 1901-1950 Platooning- We have favors left/right, but that is for P, how can I distinguish Stallings from Mack? Bench use--- Some mangers like Frank Selee used the same players regardless of situation, then George Stallings loved to give guys a break, especially Catchers Lineup consistency -- We all know Bobby Cox kept his lineup static and let it work itself out, but we know his complete opposite Tony LaRussa would throw names in a hat some days That's it for managerial tendencies, although I'd like them to be easier to implement and NOT override the GM in personnel choices. I accept the fact I have to make up or use a pseudo GM for the old days not asking for a change there as it would upset modern day performance of the game ABILITY to force the AI to carry 3 Catchers In default OOTP it carries 2, but if you have an OFer with C ratings, it will carry one For 75%+ of baseball's history teams carried 3 catchers, sure some rode their catchers pretty hard, like Frank Selee and Chance but most managers had their main catcher play 100 games, it was a tough position. Just like the ability to pick how many relievers we want, so should it be for C's, even if this is hobbled together by defaulting the backup C as start every 5 days and 3rd catcher to start every 10 I'd be happy CHEMISTRY --- yes Saber minded people don't believe this exists, but I've read too much about baseball to ignore that sometimes a manger or player helps cement a bad team into a good one. This is meaningless in Free Agency era where guys come and go, but back then, you put a Heinie Zimmerman or hal Chase on your team, doesn't matter how talented they are. This can be turned off just like coaches and would probably be intertwined with player personalities and morale BRING BACK 0 as universal. Small request, I liked the fact that all my Vets had 0 as a uniform number, so when I imported rookies, they had uniform numbers and I could edit them easier. Also, if this is implemented, make 0 a non factor so when they are promoted/demoted they stay 0 and do not change to 1 Let us choose a news story when WE kill off an owner or sell a team, not the game itself and let us choose to automatically or manually change owners in the 3 ways it usually happens, death,sale or banned WORLD.DAT As much as I am glad I have thousands of cities in Africa to choose from, the fact that Chief Bender,Al Bridwell, TY COBB and others have an unknown city is laughable. Please add every city that every major leaguer was born, it's right on baseball reference Anyway those are my 'easy' requests Last edited by Carlton; 10-09-2014 at 09:11 PM. |
10-09-2014, 08:43 PM | #2 |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,757
|
I totally disagree on chemistry but I definitely like the rest of your requests.
|
10-09-2014, 09:14 PM | #3 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,765
|
Alot of people will disagree on chemistry and an additional fielding stat for Catchers (handles pitchers,agility and arm would be optimal) but back before Free Agency, players who were leaders and decent guys who spent a lot of time with each other usually won. Constant turnover in the 25 man roster led to 2nd division...nowadays it doesn't mean squat but if we have morale forplayers not being paid in the game that can be turned off and on, why not chemistry?
I have to turn off 20 features to play historical, is it wrong to ask modern or fictional players to have to turn off 1 or 2 features? |
10-10-2014, 01:04 PM | #4 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,325
|
I'm a sabermetrics guy, and I still believe in chemistry. Some things just can't be quantified with a stat.
People can't tell me those Bonds/Kent Giants teams wouldn't have performed better had they gotten along. I would definitely use it, but obviously agree with others that it should be able to be turned off, of course. Great points and I hope your stuff makes it in... I'll see if I can't come up with my own list of stuff to help out, too.
__________________
Manager - Motor City Marshals Perfect Manager/Discord Name: jaysdailydose |
10-11-2014, 04:12 AM | #5 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Borough of Kings
Posts: 1,714
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you'll wind up someplace else." - Lawrence Peter Berra |
|
11-07-2014, 09:49 AM | #6 | |
Major Leagues
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2014, 11:34 AM | #7 |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 415
|
Great post and some great suggestions, though I really have to weigh in on the Lefty Grove comment. While TF Brown was fantastic and could have been even higher on HOF lists had he had a little longer career, Lefty Grove pitched versus second division teams? Seriously man, he was facing the YANKEES of the 20's and 30's, I think that is enough said. It was a different era playing in the 20's and 30's, no comparison to the aughts and teens. Grove's numbers are freakish considering he pitched in comparison to Brown in an era with 4 to 5 times the number of home runs hit and 50 to 60 points higher team batting averages. I think it really does a disservice to Grove to say he pitched versus second division teams as the reason he's the 8th greatest pitcher of all time and one the greatest lefties to every pitch. Just my opinion man.
__________________
"About race, I'm going to say this. If you're green or purple or whatever color, you can play for me if I think you can help this ballclub.That's all I'm going to say about race." Leo Durocher, New York Giants manager, 1946 |
11-07-2014, 12:09 PM | #8 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,825
|
Two things about this:
1. Before the 1950s, there wasn't really such a thing as a rotation. Managers put guys out there when they were rested enough to play and that was that. Some guys started every 4th or 5th game, other guys were "Sunday starters", some guys flitted in and out of the bullpen, some guys got saved for when the manager wanted a lefty to face a lefty-heavy lineup or a groundball pitcher to play at a heavy hitter's park. There was not until I believe Casey Stengel any attempt to put together a set rotation you knew was going to go out there day after day. What's tough about this is getting OOTP, which is made to simulate the modern game of baseball, to capture this. I'm not sure you're going to be terribly successful, unfortunately. That's a lot of extra AI work Markus would have to do for, frankly (and I say this as a person who plays the crap out of this game in historical mode) very little benefit. 2. The whole point of why teams carried a 3rd catcher was so that you could have your 2nd string guy be close to the bench in case you wanted to pinch-hit for the starter but still have a guy available to warm up pitchers in the bullpen. A lot of those 3rd string guys - Moe Berg comes to mind because of his non-baseball life - barely played in actual games. Nowadays that role has been replaced by the bullpen coach, so we're back to the same basic issue with #1: you're asking the game to make bad 2014 decisions to capture 1954 thinking.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2014, 05:28 PM | #9 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,386
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2014, 07:04 PM | #10 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,098
|
As I was told way back (not sure if it's true but it's what I was told) part of the reason teams carried three catchers was because back in the day the warm up/bullpen catcher had to be a rostered player. The third catcher went away when the MLB changed the rule that the catcher in the bullpen could be a non-player.
|
11-07-2014, 08:20 PM | #11 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
|
Quote:
What did work was WS money. Players were happy to take less from the Yankees because they had a good chance to make half their salary from a WS share. The Yankees clubhouse as described by David Halberstam in the great book Summer of '49, was a surly bad tempered intimidating place for many players. The only thing that mattered to veteran players was getting to and winning the WS and players who screwed up were confronted. I don't find anything wrong with that but this was not the debating society and it wasn't a pleasant place. For many Yankee players the WS share win or lose was the way to not have to get a job in the offseason. The Red Sox OTOH were better paid than the Yankees and got more perks. The Red Sox clubhouse was pretty mellow. Tom Yawkey was a jock sniffer and the players knew it. The results as Halberstam writes in the book is that the Red Sox didn't have the desperation of the Yankees. They were good but didn't want it as badly. You could screw up and get away with it and go get them next year. A tale of two cities for sure. For Historical sims good clubhouse chemistry might be the first indication of a loser.
__________________
Cheers RichW #stopthestupid “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit |
|
11-07-2014, 09:03 PM | #12 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,386
|
|
11-07-2014, 09:15 PM | #13 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,386
|
Quote:
According to MLB's own figures, for the selected seasons of 1929, 1933, 1939, 1943, 1946, and 1950, the Yankees had the highest payroll in the majors in all but the 1946 season, when the Red Sox had the highest. From 1952-56, the Yankees had the highest payroll twice, in 1954 and 1956; for the other three seasons the Indians had the highest. |
|
11-07-2014, 09:34 PM | #14 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,765
|
Quote:
Lefty Grove from 1929-1931 pitched: 140.2 innings against Boston. 140.1 innings against Cleveland. 138.2 innings against Detroit. 125.2 innings against Washington. 124.1 innings against Chicago. 104.1 innings against St. Louis. and 72 innings versus the New York Yankees. and a 4.86 ERA SEVENTY TWO in 1930 alone 1. 16.2 innings against NY. 2. 46.2 innings against Washington. 3. 48.0 innings against Cleveland. 4. 56.0 innings against Detroit. 5. 34.1 innings against StL. 6. 35.2 innings against Chicago. 7. 53.2 innings against Boston. in 1928 when he DID face the Yankees and their Lefty power he stunk...went 1-6 and I can't recall the ERA think it was high 6's While Mordecai Brown faced the Giants and Pirates about 10 times a year while facing the Braves and Phillies less than 5 Sorry CPB, you need to rethink your stance on Grove, he was vastly over rated. I do think he is top 20, but many put him in the top 10 and I strongly disagree. He was also a sulker, sometimes leaving the team for weeks after a bad game and I don't like those people on principal. Last edited by Carlton; 11-07-2014 at 09:53 PM. |
|
11-07-2014, 09:47 PM | #15 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,765
|
Quote:
Teams carried 3 catchers because they used catchers around 80 to 90 games as it was not the position you are thinking of now. It was much tougher, one can look at a team on baseball reference and see the games played . I grabbed 1906 Highlanders and see Kleinow with 98 games,McGuire with 54 and Ira Thomas with 44. The way OOTP works now, if the AI has a C with CF ratings like Bresnahan starting elsewhere it will start an OF with NO C ratings...it needs to be fixed. But like I said, historical simmers have to make 20 compromises and workaround many modern day features, having an option to carry 3 catchers like choosing the amount of relievers (which is already in the game) doesn't seem to be an outlandish request, and you don't have to use it, it defaults to 2 Cs. So in modern leagues you guys still have it the same. Last edited by Carlton; 11-07-2014 at 10:44 PM. |
|
11-07-2014, 09:50 PM | #16 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,765
|
I don't know some of the responses because they are on ignore (for very valid reasons)
If it's arguing for the sake of arguing, it's par for the course, I stand by why my suggestions should be implemented and OPTIONAL Last edited by Carlton; 11-07-2014 at 09:59 PM. |
11-07-2014, 10:16 PM | #17 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
|
Quote:
Edit You should also consider that Dimaggio was paid $100K in 1949 so that might affect the rest of the roster. Maybe there were a few other players who got more money than the rest. Baseball reference has 16 players on the Sox making $320K in 1949.
__________________
Cheers RichW #stopthestupid “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit Last edited by RchW; 11-10-2014 at 05:42 PM. |
|
11-07-2014, 10:43 PM | #18 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,630
|
Quote:
The better metric is probably how many games he started against 1st division teams, not how many innings he pitched against them. In 1930, he started only twice against the Yanks, but those also happened to be his first two starts of the season, so it doesn't look like Mack was holding him back, at least not initially. But we need to remember that NY didn't finish second that year - Washington did, and Grove started 5 times against the Senators. He also had 5 starts against Cleveland, which means that, of his 32 starts, 12 came against 1st division teams, which is about what one would expect just from a random distribution. And Grove probably lost a start in the last series of the year -- against NY -- because Mack was resting him so that he could start the first game of the world series. So I'm not convinced, just by looking at Grove's stats, that Mack held him back from 1st division teams. He may very well have held him back from pitching against NY, but then, if you're right that Grove didn't have any success against the Yankees, I wouldn't have blamed him if he did. That doesn't mean that there was a two-tier ranking among the pitchers, it just means that some pitchers pitch well against some teams and not so well against others. Grove was 2-1 with 3 saves against Washington, which was the team that the A's had to beat to win the pennant, so I don't think he was being held back just so he could pad his stats against bad clubs. |
|
11-07-2014, 11:05 PM | #19 | |
Hall Of Famer
|
Quote:
I just played a playoff game where both catchers were pinch hit for... luckily the team won the game that inning and didn't need to use a player with no ratings at catcher. Sure would be nice if the AI knew when it didn't have a replacement catcher available on the bench. Another suggestion would be to make sure your regulars are in the lineup for postseason games. I often see where a superstar is rested in the playoffs as if it is a regular season game. |
|
11-07-2014, 11:15 PM | #20 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,630
|
I think you're confusing correlation and causation here. I'd say it's much less likely that high turnover led to bad teams and much more likely that bad teams led to high turnover. After all, bad teams are composed of bad players, and bad players tend to have shorter careers than good players. Thus, there's higher turnover among bad players than good players, and so there's necessarily higher turnover among bad teams, which have more bad players, than among good teams. It certainly seems counterintuitive to suggest that bad teams would get better if they could only hold onto their bad players longer.
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|