1969 Washington Senators Ratings

revcarte · 07-19-2011, 07:53 AM

I was playing the 69 Tigers, who won the World Series in 68, and they had a 3 game series against the lowly Senators. The Senators pounded the Tigers in all 3 games and nobody on the Tigers pitching staff could stop the powerful Senators. So I began to check the ratings. Del Unser Contact 4, power 2...Ed Brinkman 3/1, Mike Epstein 3/5, Bernie Allen 3/3, McMullen 3/3, French 2/1, Stroud 3/2 (NOTE I USE A 1-5 RATING POINT OPTION). The reality of 68 was that Unser hit .231 with 0 HR's, Brinkman .187,0. Epstein .234,13. B. Allen .241, 6. McMullen .248,20. French .194, 1. Stroud .239,4.
Do these ratings make sense....how can Unser be a 4 when he hit .231?? Epstein hit 13 HRs but he is a 5 in power (out of 5). Here is a real mystery.. Brinkman hit .187 but he is a 3 in contact???
If these ratings were accurate then the Senators should have won the 68 Series and won 100 games.

Husky51 · 07-19-2011, 12:44 PM

For what it's worth, in my 69 replay, (Washington is simmed by the cpu) they are 7-7. Epstein is 4HR, 15 RBI, .309; Unser is 1, 7, .290; Brinkman is 0, 4, .192; B. Allen is 3, 12, .296; French is 1, 4 .219.

JayWigley · 07-19-2011, 01:00 PM

I'd be curious to see what their ratings are if you switch over to the 1-100 scale--maybe they are on the low end of the star scale?

Does anyone know if the fewer gradations scales (like 5 stars or 2-8 for skills) are evenly spaced, or are they more logarithmic?

For example, if evenly spaced, then we might expect 1-20 is one star, 21-40 is two stars, etc. . .but if more logarithmic, then we might see 1-30 one star, 31-50 two stars, 51-67 three stars, 68-90 four stars, 90+ five stars. . .so that the upper numbers and stars are truly more rare. . .

revcarte · 07-19-2011, 01:09 PM

thanks for the feedback and comments. My point was simply that these guys were basically lousy in real life but have solid ratings in IOOTP. Not sure how that happened but seems very unrealistic. Even in the stolen base category they are unrealistic. thanks.

Supernovae · 07-19-2011, 01:23 PM

Any chance it relates to the 1-5 scale?

The 20/80 equivalent of a 3/5 rating could range from 50-62 out of 80. That could mean the difference between a fringe player and an above average player. I guess it comes down to what ratings are used in simulating games. Then again, your players would receive the same "benefit" if we went with my theory. Then it comes down to pitching and injuries.

pstrickert · 07-19-2011, 01:43 PM

1969 season, right? Unser hit .286. The AL batting average was .246. So, relative to the other players in the league, Unser should be quite a bit above average in contact rating. As for Epstein, he had a high slugging percentage (compared to the rest of the league). In fact, he tied for ninth in HRs in the AL.

The ratings for the 1969 season are based on stats for the 1969 season. NOTE: In 1969, the Tigers won 90 games, the Senators 86.

revcarte · 07-19-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pstrickert

1969 season, right? Unser hit .286. The AL batting average was .246. So, relative to the other players in the league, Unser should be quite a bit above average in contact rating. As for Epstein, he had a high slugging percentage (compared to the rest of the league). In fact, he tied for ninth in HRs in the AL.

The ratings for the 1969 season are based on stats for the 1969 season. NOTE: In 1969, the Tigers won 90 games, the Senators 86.

Other places in this forum have indicated that the 69 stats would be based on the 68 season and the previous two seasons. NOT the 69 season. I am not an expert in OOTP but I sure am confused now. When I was upset at the play in the 68 season I was told the 68 season was not based on 68 stats. Very frustrating!

pstrickert · 07-19-2011, 02:42 PM

The 1969 season is based on 1969 stats. I'm 100% sure of it.

Husky51 · 07-19-2011, 02:51 PM

As a Strat player, I have had to reframe my frame of reference in playing IOOPT. I realize the game is designed to be more about "what if" than a "what was" approach, which is what you get with an "As Played" Strat mentality.

Until the ioopt app came out, I never heard of the game, but since the app came out, I have not played Strat. (BTW, Strat would be better scrapping their three minute baseball app as it does an injustice to their game).

I have seen statistical anomalies in IOOPT (Strat has them, too) but the performance has been plausible and the game has been fun and the release of all the seasons will keep me busy for years!.

I like Strat and will continue to keep my cards and dice as, from time to time, I like to break them out, but IOOPT has shown other bball sim games that an engaging and accurate game can be created in app format.

revcarte · 07-19-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Husky51

As a Strat player, I have had to reframe my frame of reference in playing IOOPT. I realize the game is designed to be more about "what if" than a "what was" approach, which is what you get with an "As Played" Strat mentality.

Until the ioopt app came out, I never heard of the game, but since the app came out, I have not played Strat. (BTW, Strat would be better scrapping their three minute baseball app as it does an injustice to their game).

I have seen statistical anomalies in IOOPT (Strat has them, too) but the performance has been plausible and the game has been fun and the release of all the seasons will keep me busy for years!.

I like Strat and will continue to keep my cards and dice as, from time to time, I like to break them out, but IOOPT has shown other bball sim games that an engaging and accurate game can be created in app format.

Did not realize you are a Strat player. I still play Strat on my computers and will not switch to OOTP because of this reason. I prefer my season to be based on actual stats from that season. I would like to think that my 68 Tigers would have a Denny McLain that is based on 31 victories and not what might have happened in 68. However....with that said.... I am a fan of IOOTP on the iphone and ipad since there are no alternatives. I enjoy the game, just hate the unrealism. I can tell you that the 69 Senators, which was the beginning of this thread, can not be based on 68 stats. But others, and Palli included, I BELIEVE, have indicated that a season is based on the previous season's stats.

Sebastian Palkowski · 07-19-2011, 05:38 PM

Ok, I think there is some confusion (and I did my part

). Just to clarify:

OOTP (PC/Mac) has many options available how to generate ratings based on the stats. iOOTP is more limited, not in a way how the ratings are generated but the number of options a user has.

When I talked about how ratings are generated not only based on one year but on multiple seasons I meant, that the actual year (e.g. 1969) is used in addition to 2-3 seasons from before (with the actual year weighted the most!).

For iOOTP for all historical seasons (not 2011!) the following is true:

I took a look at the code and the ratings in iOOTP for historical seasons are based only on the year in question (e.g. for the 1969 season on the stats from 1969).

I will double check with Markus when he is back from vacation to make sure I got it right.

Sorry for the confuses.

Husky51 · 07-19-2011, 07:08 PM

Based on Palli's explanation, i can see where my confusion is coming from. If you look at the stats for each player, they all show the previous year's performance, with the current year registering as you play out the games. From what i hear Palli saying, the code or logarithm for the historical seasons is based solely on the performance from the year you are playing or simming. So, then, if you figure out how to make the transactions that occured during the season you could achieve an "as played" experienced (if you are willing tediously research each game's lineups).

tanda · 07-19-2011, 09:51 PM

Ok, that makes some sense. I replayed 1961 a few times today and Norm Cash had years in the .345-.370 range with 40 hrs, so it must be based solely on 61.

As to 69 Senators, they were 10 games over .500 and 12 games over via Pythagorean. A solid team.

revcarte · 07-20-2011, 06:54 AM

But for my 68 Cardinals Bob Gibson is 3-5 and not doing well at all. Doesn't seem right since he had an era of something like 1.13 that year and I believe he won over 20 games.
I do not mean to be critical but first I had problems with the 65 Dodgers and guys like Koufax and now with the 68 Cardinals. I was having so much trouble with the 68 Tigers that I switched to 69 thinking that 69 was based on the previous season. I don't think it is my managing

since I just hit the return button for the same guys who won it all back then.
It is true that this game would never take the place of Strat for me. Heck, I would probably play Diamond Mind or APBA first since they are a true replay and the rosters are set as they ended the season. But I enjoy this game and find it entertaining and a great value for $5. Besides, it is the only game available for the Ipad and Iphone.
I appreciate the fact that we can have a free discussion on this forum. On the Strat Forum they kick you off if you are critical of their game. One guy asked if Strat was available for Iphone or Ipad and I answered that he needed to purchase IOOTP. They deleted my post. Kind of like Communism I guess. So I appreciate that we can have this kind of discussion without being banned from the forum.

07-19-2011, 07:53 AM	#1
revcarte Major Leagues Join Date: May 2011 Location: Mt. Dora, FL Posts: 359	1969 Washington Senators Ratings I was playing the 69 Tigers, who won the World Series in 68, and they had a 3 game series against the lowly Senators. The Senators pounded the Tigers in all 3 games and nobody on the Tigers pitching staff could stop the powerful Senators. So I began to check the ratings. Del Unser Contact 4, power 2...Ed Brinkman 3/1, Mike Epstein 3/5, Bernie Allen 3/3, McMullen 3/3, French 2/1, Stroud 3/2 (NOTE I USE A 1-5 RATING POINT OPTION). The reality of 68 was that Unser hit .231 with 0 HR's, Brinkman .187,0. Epstein .234,13. B. Allen .241, 6. McMullen .248,20. French .194, 1. Stroud .239,4. Do these ratings make sense....how can Unser be a 4 when he hit .231?? Epstein hit 13 HRs but he is a 5 in power (out of 5). Here is a real mystery.. Brinkman hit .187 but he is a 3 in contact??? If these ratings were accurate then the Senators should have won the 68 Series and won 100 games.

07-19-2011, 01:09 PM	#4
revcarte Major Leagues Join Date: May 2011 Location: Mt. Dora, FL Posts: 359	thanks thanks for the feedback and comments. My point was simply that these guys were basically lousy in real life but have solid ratings in IOOTP. Not sure how that happened but seems very unrealistic. Even in the stolen base category they are unrealistic. thanks.

07-19-2011, 01:43 PM	#6
pstrickert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,733	1969 season, right? Unser hit .286. The AL batting average was .246. So, relative to the other players in the league, Unser should be quite a bit above average in contact rating. As for Epstein, he had a high slugging percentage (compared to the rest of the league). In fact, he tied for ninth in HRs in the AL. The ratings for the 1969 season are based on stats for the 1969 season. NOTE: In 1969, the Tigers won 90 games, the Senators 86. Last edited by pstrickert; 07-19-2011 at 01:44 PM.

07-19-2011, 05:38 PM	#11
Sebastian Palkowski Developer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Hamburg, Germany Posts: 5,113	Ok, I think there is some confusion (and I did my part ). Just to clarify: OOTP (PC/Mac) has many options available how to generate ratings based on the stats. iOOTP is more limited, not in a way how the ratings are generated but the number of options a user has. When I talked about how ratings are generated not only based on one year but on multiple seasons I meant, that the actual year (e.g. 1969) is used in addition to 2-3 seasons from before (with the actual year weighted the most!). For iOOTP for all historical seasons (not 2011!) the following is true: I took a look at the code and the ratings in iOOTP for historical seasons are based only on the year in question (e.g. for the 1969 season on the stats from 1969). I will double check with Markus when he is back from vacation to make sure I got it right. Sorry for the confuses. __________________ Buy Franchise Hockey Manager 10

07-20-2011, 06:54 AM	#14
revcarte Major Leagues Join Date: May 2011 Location: Mt. Dora, FL Posts: 359	but... But for my 68 Cardinals Bob Gibson is 3-5 and not doing well at all. Doesn't seem right since he had an era of something like 1.13 that year and I believe he won over 20 games. I do not mean to be critical but first I had problems with the 65 Dodgers and guys like Koufax and now with the 68 Cardinals. I was having so much trouble with the 68 Tigers that I switched to 69 thinking that 69 was based on the previous season. I don't think it is my managing since I just hit the return button for the same guys who won it all back then. It is true that this game would never take the place of Strat for me. Heck, I would probably play Diamond Mind or APBA first since they are a true replay and the rosters are set as they ended the season. But I enjoy this game and find it entertaining and a great value for $5. Besides, it is the only game available for the Ipad and Iphone. I appreciate the fact that we can have a free discussion on this forum. On the Strat Forum they kick you off if you are critical of their game. One guy asked if Strat was available for Iphone or Ipad and I answered that he needed to purchase IOOTP. They deleted my post. Kind of like Communism I guess. So I appreciate that we can have this kind of discussion without being banned from the forum.

07-19-2011, 12:44 PM	#2
Husky51 Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 198	For what it's worth, in my 69 replay, (Washington is simmed by the cpu) they are 7-7. Epstein is 4HR, 15 RBI, .309; Unser is 1, 7, .290; Brinkman is 0, 4, .192; B. Allen is 3, 12, .296; French is 1, 4 .219.

07-19-2011, 01:00 PM	#3
JayWigley Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 129	I'd be curious to see what their ratings are if you switch over to the 1-100 scale--maybe they are on the low end of the star scale? Does anyone know if the fewer gradations scales (like 5 stars or 2-8 for skills) are evenly spaced, or are they more logarithmic? For example, if evenly spaced, then we might expect 1-20 is one star, 21-40 is two stars, etc. . .but if more logarithmic, then we might see 1-30 one star, 31-50 two stars, 51-67 three stars, 68-90 four stars, 90+ five stars. . .so that the upper numbers and stars are truly more rare. . .

07-19-2011, 01:23 PM	#5
Supernovae Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 160	Any chance it relates to the 1-5 scale? The 20/80 equivalent of a 3/5 rating could range from 50-62 out of 80. That could mean the difference between a fringe player and an above average player. I guess it comes down to what ratings are used in simulating games. Then again, your players would receive the same "benefit" if we went with my theory. Then it comes down to pitching and injuries.

07-19-2011, 02:42 PM	#8
pstrickert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,733	The 1969 season is based on 1969 stats. I'm 100% sure of it.

07-19-2011, 02:51 PM	#9
Husky51 Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 198	As a Strat player, I have had to reframe my frame of reference in playing IOOPT. I realize the game is designed to be more about "what if" than a "what was" approach, which is what you get with an "As Played" Strat mentality. Until the ioopt app came out, I never heard of the game, but since the app came out, I have not played Strat. (BTW, Strat would be better scrapping their three minute baseball app as it does an injustice to their game). I have seen statistical anomalies in IOOPT (Strat has them, too) but the performance has been plausible and the game has been fun and the release of all the seasons will keep me busy for years!. I like Strat and will continue to keep my cards and dice as, from time to time, I like to break them out, but IOOPT has shown other bball sim games that an engaging and accurate game can be created in app format.

07-19-2011, 07:08 PM	#12
Husky51 Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 198	Based on Palli's explanation, i can see where my confusion is coming from. If you look at the stats for each player, they all show the previous year's performance, with the current year registering as you play out the games. From what i hear Palli saying, the code or logarithm for the historical seasons is based solely on the performance from the year you are playing or simming. So, then, if you figure out how to make the transactions that occured during the season you could achieve an "as played" experienced (if you are willing tediously research each game's lineups).

07-19-2011, 09:51 PM	#13
tanda Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 26	Ok, that makes some sense. I replayed 1961 a few times today and Norm Cash had years in the .345-.370 range with 40 hrs, so it must be based solely on 61. As to 69 Senators, they were 10 games over .500 and 12 games over via Pythagorean. A solid team.