Definitely Something Wrong with the Simulation

[Tyler87898]

In season 4, I switched managing positions to the WORST team in the league, who had just completed a season with 120 losses. That very next season, with 90% the same lineup, they rattled off 85 wins and made the playoffs.

Is it possible this team was rebuilding before but now brought up some top prospects (that fill out the new 10% of the lineup)?

Personally, I don't think there's any player bias going on in OOTP. I think this is just an anomaly or coincidence.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Otrex

So, you're saying that I should just leave those numbers as default? That seems strange because I made them "tougher", though only perhaps 20% so.

Just wanted to avoid having situations where a pitcher with 10 innings gets to be rated 5-stars, but you're saying it breaks the stats? Just so I understand, what is your theory behind that?

Speaking of which, I assume the weaken and adjust settings are expressed by the season? That is to say, if a player pitches less than 10 innings as a reliever in one season, he will be weakened? As opposed to 10 innings in a career.


EDIT - I assume of course, that by "there's your issue" you're referencing the Lefty Grove issue as opposed to the original complaint? Or do you think that's somehow related too?

Yes, the Lefty Grove issue. I'm not touching the original issue.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Tyler87898

Is it possible this team was rebuilding before but now brought up some top prospects (that fill out the new 10% of the lineup)?

Personally, I don't think there's any player bias going on in OOTP. I think this is just an anomaly or coincidence.

Had this thought too. Young team losing getting high picks. 10% new players, 3 new good players can make a hell of a difference. The former high draft pick inexperienced players have aged two years and developed into better players. At the same time his former team has past their peak years and start a decline. Be kind like jumping into the Royals job last year or the Cubs job now and then say "see I took over a loser and look at them winning now". And with the Cubs, at least as far as I know, they only really added\adding two high quality players, Lester and Bryant (at a later date to avoid the FA clock). The rest are young guns that may or may not win this year but if they develop they should be great 2 years from now.

Maybe you should look to take over a team that has been wining for years but is just starting a decline with an empty minor league system? Will they win in 2 years?

I still put no credence in this claim with no malice towards Ortex. I'm sure he believes he has found something. There are others that have claimed the same thing but those, unlike Ortex, have been pretty much proven to be guys that are trying to game the system.

BUT there are just as many or probably more threads per year claiming the opposite (bias against human player) that also claim the stats to prove their theory is true. Can't both be right leaving the middle ground that is, as Markus has said and most of us have experienced, there is no bias at all.

[Otrex]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Had this thought too. Young team losing getting high picks. 10% new players, 3 new good players can make a hell of a difference. The former high draft pick inexperienced players have aged two years and developed into better players. At the same time his former team has past their peak years and start a decline. Be kind like jumping into the Royals job last year or the Cubs job now and then say "see I took over a loser and look at them winning now". And with the Cubs, at least as far as I know, they only really added\adding two high quality players, Lester and Bryant (at a later date to avoid the FA clock). The rest are young guns that may or may not win this year but if they develop they should be great 2 years from now.

Maybe you should look to take over a team that has been wining for years but is just starting a decline with an empty minor league system? Will they win in 2 years?

I still put no credence in this claim with no malice towards Ortex. I'm sure he believes he has found something. There are others that have claimed the same thing but those, unlike Ortex, have been pretty much proven to be guys that are trying to game the system.

BUT there are just as many or probably more threads per year claiming the opposite (bias against human player) that also claim the stats to prove their theory is true. Can't both be right leaving the middle ground that is, as Markus has said and most of us have experienced, there is no bias at all.

I'm willing to accept that it may be the settings which are causing this to occur. Just that I don't think I'm using anything "gamey" or strange to generate these results.

For what it's worth, while the league BA is consistent with historical 1993, there is, on average, a 13% increase in homeruns over that year (and remember that I'm playing as if 1993 every season).

Finally, though I plugged in a 1993 season at the outset and the results I'm getting back are 1993-ish for the most part, I see the text box in the historical league options says I'm playing with 2001 settings. Strange, but also worth noting that I was just playing the 2001 season in my league, though again, it should be frozen at 1993 settings (which is to say, the year displayed for the batters should indeed be 2001, but the historical league option should be stuck at 1993). I believe this might be a small bug that has no/little impact on the results generated.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Otrex

I'm willing to accept that it may be the settings which are causing this to occur. Just that I don't think I'm using anything "gamey" or strange to generate these results.

For what it's worth, while the league BA is consistent with historical 1993, there is, on average, a 13% increase in homeruns over that year (and remember that I'm playing as if 1993 every season).

Finally, though I plugged in a 1993 season at the outset and the results I'm getting back are 1993-ish for the most part, I see the text box in the historical league options says I'm playing with 2001 settings. Strange, but also worth noting that I was just playing the 2001 season in my league, though again, it should be frozen at 1993 settings (which is to say, the year displayed for the batters should indeed be 2001, but the historical league option should be stuck at 1993). I believe this might be a small bug that has no/little impact on the results generated.

Yeah, I don't think you are doing anything gamey hence I said "unlike Ortex, they are doing gamey things

So have you thought about taking over a team that has passed it's peak with aging players and an empty minor league system? Will they rebound and win in 2 years?

Take over a small market team that has hovered around the middle of the pack that doesn't have a lot of money and a mid level minor league system? Will they win in 2 years?

[IsaacR]

What team were you running? The '27 Yankees?

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Otrex

Let's just say I've played perhaps more than a couple games of OotP. You can reference my join date if you wish.

There are a lot of people on this board who have been here a long time and a lot of people who have played out a lot of games, and none of them seem to be saying this except you. If this existed, I and many others would have seen it.

[byzeil]

From my years with OOTP (since 2009) I don't believe there is a human bias built into the game but I am bored so what the heck, I am starting a series of tests based on the OPs setup as described in this thread.

I created a league as the OP described (as best I could). 16 teams, 2 leagues, random debut (1901-1981), neutralized stats. Started in 1993 using 2014 financials.

I didn't modify any other settings.

1st pass I am taking a team at random...New York Mets. I set my bench coach and assistant GM to handle everything. I will sim 10 seasons and see how the Mets do. After those 10 years I will take over the worst team and sim 10 seasons and see how they do. Repeat until I am too bored to be bothered

Edit: One note of interest...The Red Sox draftd 23yo Babe Ruth in the initial fantasy draft....how appropriate.

[Otrex]

Let me know if you want to know any of my other settings and I'll pass them along. Here are some that come to mind:

Essentially I've got it as 1993, frozen permanently in time, with all players using a combination of their career stats coupled with the OotP development engine. Financials are frozen as 2014.

Maximum cash is turned off, each team is permitted to have a different media contract, and I'm using the 2012 CBA rules. Owner demands are turned off and the entire revenue is available to all teams.

Trading frequency is average, trading difficulty is hard with "favor prospects". The AI is using Sabermetrics for its lineups, and players are valued at 40% for ratings, 35% for current year ratings, 20% for two year old ratings, and 5% for 3 year old ratings.

____________________________________________

While you're at it, see if after 10 years your historical league setting drifts with the current in-game year. After "locking" it at 1993, I see it's drifted to say "2001" even though all "progress according to historical seasons"-type settings are off.

[Lou Gehrig]

Originally Posted by Otrex

Let's just say I've played perhaps more than a couple games of OotP. You can reference my join date if you wish.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

There are a lot of people on this board who have been here a long time and a lot of people who have played out a lot of games, and none of them seem to be saying this except you. If this existed, I and many others would have seen it.

This was exactly my point.

[Otrex]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

There are a lot of people on this board who have been here a long time and a lot of people who have played out a lot of games, and none of them seem to be saying this except you. If this existed, I and many others would have seen it.

That suggests to me its a settings combination that's created the bias, which I'm okay with provided there's a way to solve it.

Some in this thread who have said [paraphrasing] "Don't pay any attention, this person is wrong", don't add any value to the conversation. This has clearly happened in at least my own case, and it's a problem.

I don't mean that to attack your premise - you could very well be right. But the game claims to allow the type of setup I'm using and create historical results, and so it should.

[gads]

Why are you guys still feeding him?

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by Otrex

Let me know if you want to know any of my other settings and I'll pass them along. Here are some that come to mind:

Essentially I've got it as 1993, frozen permanently in time, with all players using a combination of their career stats coupled with the OotP development engine. Financials are frozen as 2014.

Maximum cash is turned off, each team is permitted to have a different media contract, and I'm using the 2012 CBA rules. Owner demands are turned off and the entire revenue is available to all teams.

Trading frequency is average, trading difficulty is hard with "favor prospects". The AI is using Sabermetrics for its lineups, and players are valued at 40% for ratings, 35% for current year ratings, 20% for two year old ratings, and 5% for 3 year old ratings.

____________________________________________

While you're at it, see if after 10 years your historical league setting drifts with the current in-game year. After "locking" it at 1993, I see it's drifted to say "2001" even though all "progress according to historical seasons"-type settings are off.

Would you be willing to share your league file/upload it somewhere? I could then use it as the baseline for my runs.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by byzeil

From my years with OOTP (since 2009) I don't believe there is a human bias built into the game but I am bored so what the heck, I am starting a series of tests based on the OPs setup as described in this thread.

I created a league as the OP described (as best I could). 16 teams, 2 leagues, random debut (1901-1981), neutralized stats. Started in 1993 using 2014 financials.

I didn't modify any other settings.

1st pass I am taking a team at random...New York Mets. I set my bench coach and assistant GM to handle everything. I will sim 10 seasons and see how the Mets do. After those 10 years I will take over the worst team and sim 10 seasons and see how they do. Repeat until I am too bored to be bothered

Edit: One note of interest...The Red Sox draftd 23yo Babe Ruth in the initial fantasy draft....how appropriate.

1st 10 years run as GM/Manager (on vacation) of the Mets...Early returns don't show a human bias..of course it also could be that Mets thing Taking over Milwaukee (60-101 in 2003)

[Painmantle]

[Lou Gehrig]

Originally Posted by Painmantle

Looks like a big crowd today.

[greenOak]

Originally Posted by Otrex

Hmm... the obvious troll is well, obvious, but I'll indulge you for a moment.

My background is in economics and I've done a bit of work in data regression models. My thesis demonstrated, with 95% confidence, the differences between reported and actual results of osteoarthritis in the Canadian workforce. It called on a health study in which there were about 22,000 valid responses... but truth be told, I obtained nearly the same result with just 500 responses randomly picked from the data field. Truth be told, scientists will sometimes accept a sample size of n=30 as sign that further research is necessary. I might not completely understand variance, but I wonder how much you do as well.

When you say "run 1000 seasons" are you basing that on experience working in data regression, or are you trying to provide me with an impossible task so as to prove the validity of your point? I'm going to say it's the latter. You might as well have said "Hey everyone, look at his silly face! Let's not allow him on the jungle gym until he stops looking so silly!"

I've claimed a statistical turnaround within a short period of time that is repeatable and with the only changing factor being the declaration to the program that I am running a particular team (and perhaps a 10% change to rosters, selected at random). That includes taking a 118-game loser and making them into a World Series champion within two seasons with no input of any kind. I believe that is unprecedented historically. Therefore, even with the small sample size of just 9 seasons, I continue to claim that there is a reason to suspect an issue, given that, upon demand, I can jump to the worst team in the league and duplicate those results.

Maybe it's a result of my settings? Maybe it can be fixed with a check-mark being placed in a box that I have not noticed? Great, let's find a way to have that addressed. But if the best you've got is the adolescent version of "Don't listen to him! He's silly!" along with the mis-use of the word "you're", I think I know who I'd pay attention to if I were the developer.

The funny thing is I have a graduate degree in economics lol.

[David Watts]

For what it matters, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Mancandy]

The OP calling somebody else a troll might be the single greatest sentence in this website's history, if not in Internet message board history. And thumping his chest about his "experience" when somebody pointed out his gross misuse of the word "definitely" is up there too.

Like somebody else said, taking over a rebuilding team and then watching them win doesn't prove anything. Teams go from losing to winning, and vice versa, regularly. Good teams get old and lose players to injury or free agency, bad teams draft talented prospects and usually have payroll room to sign better players. The entire system, and this is true in every sport, is designed to help bad teams get better at the expense of the good teams. Your result could easily be explained by making the switch at the right time. In that sense, you don't even have a sample size of five, you have a sample size of one. That's not even a sample size.

But, to be fair, you could sim 1000 seasons and switch teams every five years and it still wouldn't be meaningful. Because there's no control. There's no way of knowing what those teams would have done if you weren't on them, in the seasons you were on them.

If you want to prove there's a human bias, you need a much better method. You need to run the SAME SEASON to have any useful information. Start a game like you did, assign all the players, but turn off injuries and trades and any others variables. Make a copy of the game. Sim the season while unemployed a few times, average out the results. Pick any team you want, take them over, and sim the season a few more times. Hell, go through and do it with each team if you want. If they do appreciably better while you're on them, then you're on to something. If not, and I highly doubt they will, then we know there is no human bias. But, either way, running the same season is the key if you want to have valuable information.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Mancandy

If you want to prove there's a human bias, you need a much better method. You need to run the SAME SEASON to have any useful information. Start a game like you did, assign all the players, but turn off injuries and trades and any others variables. Make a copy of the game. Sim the season while unemployed a few times, average out the results. Pick any team you want, take them over, and sim the season a few more times. Hell, go through and do it with each team if you want. If they do appreciably better while you're on them, then you're on to something. If not, and I highly doubt they will, then we know there is no human bias. But, either way, running the same season is the key if you want to have valuable information.

This, yo. I actually started setting it up but I couldn't find where to change it to a one-year replay.