Luck too important in PT

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by Thalion

Wait.... wut?

Yeah, I was unclear... Just agreeing that great cards won't always put up great numbers because other teams also have great cards.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by BPS

The OP raised an issue about variance: the occasional large difference in the performance of the same player in the same environment. This concern is completely different from complaints about Williams not hitting .400.

I also have come to believe, as was proposed above, that OOTP applies some factor to each player that modifies their ratings, perhaps over the course of a season or perhaps over a period of less than a season. (Other means exist for getting to this result, but that is the basic idea).

We don't.

[Izz]

There are things at play other than card ratings, too. Team and player strategies (both yours and opposition); lineup, rotation and bullpen construction; ballpark factors; etc.

[BPS]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

We don't.

I accept that.

Here's a question: are ALL players who are identified as "hot" or "cold" purely the result of random outcomes? Or, do some players identified as being "hot" have a higher probability of having a good outcome?

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Neezer

Interesting responses.

I get that players have streaks in baseball and can have really bad slumps.

BUT...the cards have ratings based on actual previous performance and should for the most part perform as rated over a 162 game, 600 AB season. This is not a small sample size. So If there is a "sliding scale" of the ratings (low to high ratings potential), then we dont get to see it. Maybe they should open the game engine so we can see. While I dont expect a 1941 Ted Williams to hit .400. every PT season. I also dont agree with him hitting .235 over an entire season. That would be an entire season of slumping and I would argue is then not realistic to how the 1941 real life Ted performed.

hmmm i would think there would be alot of variability because of how each team is constructed and the settings for each player.
one team could really suck and they can pitch around him, or not have as many runner in scoring position when he is a bat.

someone may have him set to agressive sacrifice bunting : )
some may never rest player

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by BPS

The OP raised an issue about variance: the occasional large difference in the performance of the same player in the same environment. This concern is completely different from complaints about Williams not hitting .400.

This needs to be stated again, apparently.

The issue being discussed in this thread has never been that cards are underproducing. It is that the same card is producing in a way that is impossible to predict from season to season.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by BPS

I accept that.

Here's a question: are ALL players who are identified as "hot" or "cold" purely the result of random outcomes? Or, do some players identified as being "hot" have a higher probability of having a good outcome?

Hot and cold is just reporting on what players have already done. When they've had a few "hot" games, they get the hot tag. Same for cold. It's only about what's already happened, not what will happen in the future.

It's not predictive, that the player is going to be hot or cold in the next game.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

This needs to be stated again, apparently.

The issue being discussed in this thread has never been that cards are underproducing. It is that the same card is producing in a way that is impossible to predict from season to season.

The higher variability comes because the talent ratings in most PT leagues are much more flat than a regular OOTP league. Even in PT though, you won't see Perfect Pedro or Perfect Babe having too many bad seasons, they're just too good even with the inflated talent pool. But for average to bad players, or even just good ones, a bad season is always possible both in regular OOTP and in PT.

It's no different than in regular OOTP, but the flatter talent pool and the big difference in who is a average and likely highly variable player makes things feel different and makes it hard to adjust mentally to who's that sort of player.

In regular OOTP, you wouldn't think twice if Anibal Sanchez or Mike Moustakas has a down year one year and a great year the next. Never mind actual bad players. You are not only not surprised, but expect it even.

In some PT leagues, because of the higher and flatter talent pool, Anibal Sanchez = Bob Gibson and Mike Moustakas = Brooks Robinson. That can be a hard thing to wrap your brain around, but the underlying mechanics and variance are the same in each case.

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The real 1941 Ted Williams did not face the level of pitching that he faces in PT.

People keep forgetting that there are no Ranger pitchers to fatten your stats on. As a long suffering Ranger fan I am quite sure that this is the only problem with under performing hitters in PT.

[sharknut]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The higher variability comes because the talent ratings in most PT leagues are much more flat than a regular OOTP league. Even in PT though, you won't see Perfect Pedro or Perfect Babe having too many bad seasons, they're just too good even with the inflated talent pool. But for average to bad players, or even just good ones, a bad season is always possible both in regular OOTP and in PT.

It's no different than in regular OOTP, but the flatter talent pool and the big difference in who is a average and likely highly variable player makes things feel different and makes it hard to adjust mentally to who's that sort of player.

In regular OOTP, you wouldn't think twice if Anibal Sanchez or Mike Moustakas has a down year one year and a great year the next. Never mind actual bad players. You are not only not surprised, but expect it even.

In some PT leagues, because of the higher and flatter talent pool, Anibal Sanchez = Bob Gibson and Mike Moustakas = Brooks Robinson. That can be a hard thing to wrap your brain around, but the underlying mechanics and variance are the same in each case.

Regardless of competition, Hank Aaron would NEVER have a -1.6 WAR, which he currently has for me. This isn't Hunter Pence having a bad year. It's Hank Aaron. His worst ever as a regular was a WAR of 4.9.

Hank Aaron as the worst player in the league is an issue.

It's a issue with how the game runs, but it's the same for every player. It would almost be better if these were nameless players so it wouldn't be so wrong to see Aaron be the worst player in the entire league, which is he for me.

[CrazyWR]

what are Hank's ratings? What kind of park do you play in? What level of PT are you at? Using absolutes like never and always is just not a good idea. there are plenty of factors that come into play.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Hot and cold is just reporting on what players have already done. When they've had a few "hot" games, they get the hot tag. Same for cold. It's only about what's already happened, not what will happen in the future.

It's not predictive, that the player is going to be hot or cold in the next game.

Bookmarking this for the people who think that digital cards need to be benched because of cold streaks.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by sharknut

Regardless of competition, Hank Aaron would NEVER have a -1.6 WAR, which he currently has for me. This isn't Hunter Pence having a bad year. It's Hank Aaron. His worst ever as a regular was a WAR of 4.9.

Hank Aaron as the worst player in the league is an issue.

It's a issue with how the game runs, but it's the same for every player. It would almost be better if these were nameless players so it wouldn't be so wrong to see Aaron be the worst player in the entire league, which is he for me.

Hank Aaron's WAR was accumulated in real life MLB, not in PT. You just completely ignored the post you replied to.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by sharknut

Regardless of competition, Hank Aaron would NEVER have a -1.6 WAR, which he currently has for me. This isn't Hunter Pence having a bad year. It's Hank Aaron. His worst ever as a regular was a WAR of 4.9.

Hank Aaron as the worst player in the league is an issue.

It's a issue with how the game runs, but it's the same for every player. It would almost be better if these were nameless players so it wouldn't be so wrong to see Aaron be the worst player in the entire league, which is he for me.

If Hank Aaron in PT were playing against the same opponents that he did in real life, then you might have an argument.

Since he's not, you don't.

You don't understand PT, homie.

[BPS]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The higher variability comes because the talent ratings in most PT leagues are much more flat than a regular OOTP league. Even in PT though, you won't see Perfect Pedro or Perfect Babe having too many bad seasons, they're just too good even with the inflated talent pool. But for average to bad players, or even just good ones, a bad season is always possible both in regular OOTP and in PT.

It's no different than in regular OOTP, but the flatter talent pool and the big difference in who is a average and likely highly variable player makes things feel different and makes it hard to adjust mentally to who's that sort of player.

In regular OOTP, you wouldn't think twice if Anibal Sanchez or Mike Moustakas has a down year one year and a great year the next. Never mind actual bad players. You are not only not surprised, but expect it even.

In some PT leagues, because of the higher and flatter talent pool, Anibal Sanchez = Bob Gibson and Mike Moustakas = Brooks Robinson. That can be a hard thing to wrap your brain around, but the underlying mechanics and variance are the same in each case.

I assume that in regular OOTP the distribution of the various talents are kinda bell-shaped, but in PT I assume the distribution of talent isn't even necessarily symmetrical but is skewed right. And, the variance of the distributions of talents is relatively small (compared to regular OOTP).

As the underlying algorithms for producing (seasonal) statistical output in OOTP were developed using mostly broad, bell-shaped distributions of talents, in the setting of PT they generate (seasonal) output that might not be consistent with what people's intuition tell them is appropriate, in particular the occasional large change season to season. The talent distributions in PT set up apparent "butterfly effects" where small changes in initial conditions generate very different outputs.

If OOTP's algorithms were built anew for the PT environment, I bet these butterfly effects might be much smaller in magnitude.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by BPS

I assume that in regular OOTP the distribution of the various talents are kinda bell-shaped, but in PT I assume the distribution of talent isn't even necessarily symmetrical but is skewed right. And, the variance of the distributions of talents is relatively small (compared to regular OOTP).

As the underlying algorithms for producing (seasonal) statistical output in OOTP were developed using mostly broad, bell-shaped distributions of talents, in the setting of PT they generate (seasonal) output that might not be consistent with what people's intuition tell them is appropriate, in particular the occasional large change season to season. The talent distributions in PT set up apparent "butterfly effects" where small changes in initial conditions generate very different outputs.

If OOTP's algorithms were built anew for the PT environment, I bet these butterfly effects might be much smaller in magnitude.

I do not know for a fact if this is true or not, but I suspect there's a lot of validity to this. Logically it makes sense.

[spleen1015]

It's also ratings versus league totals as well.

As an extreme example, in a real league there are maybe 5 guys with an 80 HR rating. So, they are going to hit 50 HRs.

In PT, there could be a lot more guys with an 80 HR rating. They're not going to hit 50 HR because of the relationship with the league totals.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

In PT, there could be a lot more guys with an 80 HR rating. They're not going to hit 50 HR because of the relationship with the league totals.

Yeah, exactly.

[sharknut]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Hank Aaron's WAR was accumulated in real life MLB, not in PT. You just completely ignored the post you replied to.

You missed where I said, "It would almost be better if these were nameless players so it wouldn't be so wrong to see Aaron be the worst player in the entire league, which is he for me."

People wouldn't complain that "Henry Barron" was the worst player in the league with the same rating that Henry Aaron has. The name of the player gives unrealistic expectations.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by sharknut

People wouldn't complain that "Henry Barron" was the worst player in the league with the same rating that Henry Aaron has. The name of the player gives unrealistic expectations.

Yep, that's absolutely true.

Also there's the related fact that some cards for even big name guys are based on lesser seasons of theirs.

So the expectations are even more unrealistic in that case, since they're rated on seasons where they were maybe only league average or a little better anyway, not really what we think of as "Hank Aaron" or "Tom Seaver" to begin with. They're really just cards of guys who were decent in a given year but happen to have a famous name.