Severe Player Inconsistency?

[bdawg]

I scoured the forums for a long time trying to find something related to this, but I couldn't, which surprised me. Hence, I'm hoping maybe I just need to tweak a couple of settings that everyone else seems to know about?

So fair warning: I'm not new to baseball. I'm not new to baseball strategy. I'm not new to statistics. I've been playing baseball games and baseball sim games for a long time now and I've been buying OOTP for a few years now. One thing I've noticed over the years with OOTP is the inconsistency of players, however it feels far worse this year. A traditionally good player with a lifetime .290 average will hit .300 one season, then .190 the next, .210, then I trade him and he's back to .320. It feels like there must be some sigma setting for the gaussian distribution for the random number generation that I'm not seeing.

Yes I get it, players have up and down years. Yes I get it, it's a game which is basically rolling the dice behind the scenes for every single thing. But in OOTP 20 I've literally played through 9 seasons so far and the only thing consistent is that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER is inconsistent, except the handful of future HOFers in the game today. I'll hire the best staff I can, I'll field a talented team, and we end up barely serviceable with a sub .500 record.

It feels like pitching is the most inconsistent. Guys with career ERAs of under 4 will end up with 7+ ERAs. I've tried dropping them [the ones who can] to AAA for some work in the minors and it doesn't help. The minute they hit a 6+ ERA for my team, the only cure is trading them if I'm lucky enough to find a trade. I'll also literally watch a guy pitch half the season at a horrible 8+ ERA and then he'll have a good second half and finish with a 6.

I thought it was the chemistry system and somehow I wasn't doing what I should, so I disabled it. No dice. I thought it was this year's morale system, so I disabled it. No dice. I thought it was the personality system - disabled, no dice. Whatever it is, it feels so much worse this year than previous years.

So yeah, if anyone has some constructive advice, I'd love to hear it. I'm not looking for a perfectly predictable game. But I am looking for something that doesn't feel like I'm spinning a roulette wheel.

[NoOne]

in the past i haven't seen that type of volatility with the elite players. with good players, sure... but not the true top-shelf guys.

plenty of good players can put up top-shelf seasons... but time will always out them for what they are... good but not great.

you can find a thread where i am boggled by a HoF first ballot guy out of nowhere is incompetent 1 year... but so in frequent that it's not a concern and plausiable, anyway. usually it's a few months and they revocer... occasionally it's a season-long funk, and i don't play with delayed/hidden injuries, i so iknow if it is caused by that, at least.

i'd say it's a bit murky if certain settings are on -- like delayed injuries... or dtd injuries throughout year etc... could be other factors causing such wild swings. inaccurate scouting is another... natural ebb and flow of player ratingsn over time, too...

or, they guy isn't that good.. got lucky early in career and is now showing his true colors...

or, ratings can waffle a bit... i don't think it's 100% linear as far as ratings -> production. e.g. a 64 vs 66 may not be the same difference as 69 vs 71. if a player is naturally waffling between the next tier up and down a tier, it'd cause more volatile results.

e.g. 81+ contact in years past is a totally different animal than sub-81. drastically more volatility from guys in the 70's than 80s.

distribution is a bit different than in year's past... so if it got clumpier in the middle and lower portions, that would exacerbate the phenomenom i just mentioned, best guess.

you could be right... and not asking for more info... it'd be impossible to tell from one example with the eye. time will tell..

as far as tricks you might be able to do... i find increasing offense creates more differentiation from bottom to top in league, which should make the top guys a bit more consistent/better, all other things remaining the same.

if ba is the issue, increase modifier for hits... raise league BA by .005 or so and see what happens. it doesn't take much.

i find low ~.250s league BA results in clumpy and volatily results of even the higher end guys in the past. ~258-262 really opens it up... and @ .258 you are still very very unlikely to see a .400BA guy even in 100 years. just depends on your preferences as to what you want to see on that.

[bdawg]

Thanks for the reply. I'm willing to try anything at this point. I'll give the BA a shot, although I'm worried that's going to destroy my pitching staff worse than it already is.

We've all seen real players who had a great season turn into nothingburgers. Brady Anderson is a name that comes to mind. But these folks are few and far between in reality. But in this game it feels like there are several Brady Andersons on a yearly basis. I wish there was a consistency (sigma) setting to pull the normal (gaussian) distribution curve of the random numbers tighter.

Thanks again!

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by bdawg

Thanks for the reply. I'm willing to try anything at this point. I'll give the BA a shot, although I'm worried that's going to destroy my pitching staff worse than it already is.

We've all seen real players who had a great season turn into nothingburgers. Brady Anderson is a name that comes to mind. But these folks are few and far between in reality. But in this game it feels like there are several Brady Andersons on a yearly basis. I wish there was a consistency (sigma) setting to pull the normal (gaussian) distribution curve of the random numbers tighter.

Thanks again!

Yeah I understand what you are saying. I've been playing for at least ten years now and I've always felt that there were just a few too many times where players fell off a cliff in their prime after putting up several productive seasons and not suffering any kind of significant injury. But it is all just by observation with no statistical analysis so it doesn't mean a whole lot. I've always wondered if in the pursuit of the possibility of OOTP to produce 60 HR or .400 BA seasons that maybe it also created a likelihood for good players to have extremes at the other end at a probability that is higher than you actually see in MLB. I have absolutely zero empirical evidence to support any of that. It is only based upon my own observations and ruminations on the subject while simming hundreds of seasons.

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Yeah I understand what you are saying. I've been playing for at least ten years now and I've always felt that there were just a few too many times where players fell off a cliff in their prime after putting up several productive seasons and not suffering any kind of significant injury. But it is all just by observation with no statistical analysis so it doesn't mean a whole lot. I've always wondered if in the pursuit of the possibility of OOTP to produce 60 HR or .400 BA seasons that maybe it also created a likelihood for good players to have extremes at the other end at a probability that is higher than you actually see in MLB. I have absolutely zero empirical evidence to support any of that. It is only based upon my own observations and ruminations on the subject while simming hundreds of seasons.

As far as players falling off the cliff I would check their Woba and WRC+ to see if that was consistent over the span of several years. And see what their babip is. They could have gotten incredibly unlucky one year.

The lineup card also matters. Did it change? Is everyone in the same spot? Are the others doing the same or better?

I feel like when you trade someone and they do better it might be because they fit better.

I know sometimes my lineup gets out of whack and all of a sudden I'll have too many players that K a lot. Which might her others in the lineup. Or maybe all of a sudden I get players that can't walk or can't get extra base hits.

Think many times in OOTP its a case of dominoes. 1 thing effects the next thing. But sometimes these changes are so small we can't detect them to it has become extreme.

Also unless they are a superstar they might only have 5 good years at the MLB level. Even all stars or a chance mvp. Not every ball player can keep up the pace for 10-15 years.

What is your aging and development speed set at? I set mine to aging .75 and dev 1.25.

I do increase my randomness because I typically keep starting over on opening day of current year after i get about 10 years in with one team. So that keeps it fresh. Think I usually set it to 125-145

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

As far as players falling off the cliff I would check their Woba and WRC+ to see if that was consistent over the span of several years. And see what their babip is. They could have gotten incredibly unlucky one year.

The lineup card also matters. Did it change? Is everyone in the same spot? Are the others doing the same or better?

I feel like when you trade someone and they do better it might be because they fit better.

I know sometimes my lineup gets out of whack and all of a sudden I'll have too many players that K a lot. Which might her others in the lineup. Or maybe all of a sudden I get players that can't walk or can't get extra base hits.

Think many times in OOTP its a case of dominoes. 1 thing effects the next thing. But sometimes these changes are so small we can't detect them to it has become extreme.

Also unless they are a superstar they might only have 5 good years at the MLB level. Even all stars or a chance mvp. Not every ball player can keep up the pace for 10-15 years.

What is your aging and development speed set at? I set mine to aging .75 and dev 1.25.

I do increase my randomness because I typically keep starting over on opening day of current year after i get about 10 years in with one team. So that keeps it fresh. Think I usually set it to 125-145

My development settings are left at default because I trust the time put in by the developers to have the whole thing properly balanced than I do my own intuition and "eye test". Given that, I was referring more to the guys who are drafted in the first few rounds and seen as prospects. They typically make it to majors at 22 or 23. They put up three or four productive seasons, usually of increasing value and all while your scout continues to see them as an above average MLB starter in potential. Then somehow just as they get to their prime or are a year or two in, they fall of the cliff and within a year your scout has downgraded them to a guy who is barely bench worthy. Obviously that does happen in real life. But again I'm not making any kind of empirical statement of fact. Its just my perception.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by bdawg

Thanks for the reply. I'm willing to try anything at this point. I'll give the BA a shot, although I'm worried that's going to destroy my pitching staff worse than it already is.

We've all seen real players who had a great season turn into nothingburgers. Brady Anderson is a name that comes to mind. But these folks are few and far between in reality. But in this game it feels like there are several Brady Andersons on a yearly basis. I wish there was a consistency (sigma) setting to pull the normal (gaussian) distribution curve of the random numbers tighter.

Thanks again!

i think it helps them too... greater differentiation from top to bottom is possible...

the elite guys are still low...

i do a .258/.320ish (was a bit lower last time, but a pita to get obp spot on) and a ..i forget slugging, but not as high as defaul -- only 5000-5200hr if i recall... anyway that only results in a average 4.10 ERA and maybe a bit less.

it'll be a small increas in ERA, because BA is not strongly correlated on its own.

you might even see better results from the elite guys.

like jimmy said, batting lower in lineup and even as a DH can hurt numbers... built into game.. i guess the dh thing is backed up by RL stats, but i just don't get why batting lower decreases averages... especially if your lineup is stacked 1-9. that would avoid the issues of RL 7-9 guys being sorrounded by inferior talent -- that's got to be the cause.

a person on base helps the batter immensely. forcing a pitching into a stretch instead of wind-up cna be a big deal for some. etc etc... that's got to be the cause, because hitting "7th" isn't magic. it's not causal.. it's got to be environmental factors.

with dh, you sit around a lot... i bet that could be avoided with stretching and maybe some light aerobic workout between innings, but not likely with MLBplayers, lol.... again, whatever the cause is, it can be avoided. there is no such thing as magic in this world. it shouldn't be universally applied, imo.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

My development settings are left at default because I trust the time put in by the developers to have the whole thing properly balanced than I do my own intuition and "eye test". Given that, I was referring more to the guys who are drafted in the first few rounds and seen as prospects. They typically make it to majors at 22 or 23. They put up three or four productive seasons, usually of increasing value and all while your scout continues to see them as an above average MLB starter in potential. Then somehow just as they get to their prime or are a year or two in, they fall of the cliff and within a year your scout has downgraded them to a guy who is barely bench worthy. Obviously that does happen in real life. But again I'm not making any kind of empirical statement of fact. Its just my perception.

you can show signs of aging 26-28, it's just rarer.

high success and a bad personality may be a bad mix in that context?

i've had a number of HoF talents take a dump by 26-28... still decent relative to the league, but a shell of their former selves, nonetheless.

figure if they aren't 81+ contact or power, they aren't true studs. (if they've shifted distribution down, i'd go by 76+ -- color codes are not whimsically choosen.. they match up with something in the code most likely -- just tpyical stuff.. you have to tie it to something, no reason to make up something new for tracks, use something already fucntional instead.)

Dyz -- i don't think they do anything artificial to cuase a .400 hitter or 60+ hr. that probabilty is dictated by your League totals and modifiers. e.g. in my leagues i use static LTM. only player talent fluctuation based on draft and all that happens afterward over time cuases the fluctuation year-to-year.

i think i had a .390-somthing guy in 150+ years. simply won't happen very often in a ~.258BA league (based on long-term sim to hone LTM -- 100 years or more)... get that average up and over .260 and i bet you see it at least 1 in a 100years. keep bumping BA up and it will become more common. same with HR.. i keep it ~5000 and ~60ish is ceiling. think a guy got to 62-63 in 150+ years. only 2 players got there with many years between. had 4-5 4hr games though..was surprised by that.. i usually don't see that very often in my leagues. though i went from ~4500 to ~5000 hr LT and that's why i saw it more.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by NoOne

Dyz -- i don't think they do anything artificial to cuase a .400 hitter or 60+ hr.

Everything they do is artificial.

[NoOne]

well, yeah, but not in the context you were speaking about.

there's no "if no player exists with .400 after X years, then amp up the likelyhood that it occurs" code or that volatility is increased to increase the chances of it occuring etc etc... (it may be part of how they callibrate things => only makes sense and among numerous other points to compare and make a reasonable proportional result similar to RL), which is what you were alluding to. there are no 'efforts' to force it to happen. it's a product of your totals/modifiers and whatever else influences resulting stats and proportions etc...

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by NoOne

well, yeah, but not in the context you were speaking about.

Sure it was. For all we know when they balanced the game they had a choice to tweak the sim engine such that .400 averages were possible when playing historical but the downside is that this causes the engine to produce a greater percentage of variance on the underperforming side of things when it comes to applying that sim engine to a modern day start. One has to assume the sim isn't perfect and that trade offs are made in certain areas of the game in order to ensure certain results in other areas of the game. The programming for and the game itself of baseball is too complex for it to be otherwise at this stage of our technological evolution. This is all hypothetical obviously since I have no inside knowledge nor do I have the expertise or time to dive into the numbers and see if I can find an emergent pattern that produces a reliable answer. I know enough though to know that there had to be general sim decisions made at the core level after testing and balancing the game. This could have been a hypothetical discussion:

"OK, well we fixed the problem with too many home runs appearing in pre 1920 games but that seemed to give us a problem of the sim producing too many low ERA outliers in the 1960's era."

The programming is so complex and has been built upon so many times that I imagine that any time they go in to fix an actual bug one of the problems they have is not producing another bug somewhere else with the fix. And I imagine that it is impossible right now to get a baseball sim engine to produce "perfectly" realistic results across every possible iteration of a league or save that a player can play. Therefore tradeoffs must be decided upon where maybe you accept a slightly unrealistic number of home runs in one era in order to not have a totally unrealistic number of strikeouts in a different era. Of course knowing that tradeoffs were inevitable and knowing how they were decided upon or exactly what they were are two totally different things.