Luck too important in PT

Neezer · 02-14-2019, 01:34 PM

Been playing the game and enjoying it....sort of. When I say 'luck is too important" , I mean variability between the same players/cards in the same league. Example, there should not be an almost 200 point Batting Ave difference between 2 1941 Ted Williams that are on separate teams, in the same league, all eventually facing the same teams. Otherwise I see it as a big turn off to the PT part of the game. I also reviewed the stats of all the Trouts in the league. There are 12. The variability between the best and worst is very big. So one teams Trout leads the league in WAR because of good luck and another teams Trout is a below average player because of bad luck? I hope OOTP is noticing this a does something to fix it in 2020.

webdox · 02-14-2019, 01:41 PM

You can't expect to have every 100 Trout perform at 100 every season.

The game would REALLY get boring quickly since there always will be multiple Trouts, Mookies, etc...

Just like players, some have off years. So your cards will, too.

The fun and challenge is to figure out your puzzle pieces and how to arrange your cast of characters each season into a winning product.

Knowing all this ahead of time and knowing that every other team faces the same hurdles eases the stress

Dunzie · 02-14-2019, 01:55 PM

It’s on an at bat by at bat basis. Trout doesn’t have the same stats every year. There HAS to be some variability within the game. I find it’s fairly balanced overall although yes the game is prone to some players having off years overall. Also some of the variables can be influenced by you - like the ballpark factors and your team and individual player strategy settings.

Dogberry99 · 02-14-2019, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webdox

The fun and challenge is to figure out your puzzle pieces and how to arrange your cast of characters each season into a winning product.

This reduces me to little more than guessing whether or not my Carlos Martinez will have an ERA of 9.00 or 4.50 in Perfect this year (both are possibilities based on previous results). I'm fine with variance, but I do not want it to come at the expense of predictive planning. Building a roster is, in and of itself, puzzle enough.

*shrugs* I apologize for wanting the ratings to mean more than they do, I guess...

HRBaker · 02-14-2019, 02:55 PM

I've played baseball games for the last 50 years, all the way back to Replay Baseball designed and printed in Carmichaels, PA. In every one of them, players sometimes did better and sometimes did worst - because the possibilities were the result of a "dice roll".

I don't know about you, but although 100 rolls of a die will result in fewer 2's and 12's than anything else, I had plenty bad seasons when all I could throw was a 7.

Out of all those games, there never was one that was an "exact" replay, because the only way that could ever happen is to start with the player's season stats and subtract each result until you matched the real stats exactly.

That is not a game I want to play.

Kushiel · 02-14-2019, 03:11 PM

I like it fine. Luck is part of everything. Just think if the apple would have fallen behind Newton just 6 inches where would we be? So I keep playing and posting here about playing and other trivial stuff.

Matt Arnold · 02-14-2019, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRBaker

I've played baseball games for the last 50 years, all the way back to Replay Baseball designed and printed in Carmichaels, PA. In every one of them, players sometimes did better and sometimes did worst - because the possibilities were the result of a "dice roll".

I don't know about you, but although 100 rolls of a die will result in fewer 2's and 12's than anything else, I had plenty bad seasons when all I could throw was a 7.

Out of all those games, there never was one that was an "exact" replay, because the only way that could ever happen is to start with the player's season stats and subtract each result until you matched the real stats exactly.

That is not a game I want to play.

Never mind that I don't even know how we would handle this. So my Lindor has hit .175 this season so far. Does that mean he should hit like a .350 hitter the next 100 PA to "get back on track"? I mean, he should because he's overdue for a hot streak (I don't think his .189 BABIP can continue, right?). And I've love to see that happen to a couple of the other guys from my team too (the 5 Trouts in my league have WAR values of 4.9, 3.4, 3.1, 3.0, and 1.9. Guess which one is mine?).

But that's the nature of the game. Ratings matter - Pedro Martinez will almost always outperform Carlos Martinez over the season. But it just shows that the variability in baseball is pretty big.

BPS · 02-14-2019, 03:28 PM

I think it is possible to both understand random processes AND to believe that the variance of performance of players is possibly greater than explained by a series of independent random draw from the same underlying probability distribution.

stl jason · 02-14-2019, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Never mind that I don't even know how we would handle this. So my Lindor has hit .175 this season so far. Does that mean he should hit like a .350 hitter the next 100 PA to "get back on track"? I mean, he should because he's overdue for a hot streak (I don't think his .189 BABIP can continue, right?). And I've love to see that happen to a couple of the other guys from my team too (the 5 Trouts in my league have WAR values of 4.9, 3.4, 3.1, 3.0, and 1.9. Guess which one is mine?).

But that's the nature of the game. Ratings matter - Pedro Martinez will almost always outperform Carlos Martinez over the season. But it just shows that the variability in baseball is pretty big.

besides, if it was just about who had the best cards/ratings, there wouldn't be any point in actually simming out the games.... then you wouldn't get the "joy" of pulling up a box score to see your team of superstars were just shut-out by unsung hero Izzy Schmayatz (41)

and that randomness carries over to the real MLB.... how else could you get a trivia question like:

what do Cy Young, Sandy Koufax, Randy Johnson, Dallas Braden and Philip Humber all have in common? (all have throw a perfect game; but most people have probably never heard of the last two)

Neezer · 02-14-2019, 03:42 PM

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.

Orcin · 02-14-2019, 04:09 PM

Quote:

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.

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

Neezer · 02-14-2019, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

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

but then you cant explain the hitters who perform better than rated against much tougher pitching than they ever faced. It has to apply both ways...

Abnerdoubleday · 02-14-2019, 04:35 PM

While I agree with those who say that the game would be pretty boring if every card was always and exactly as rated, I also agree that there is something more than just random chance at work. The fluctuations are just too great over large numbers of at-bats. Maybe every year the game engine assigns every card a random multiplier that is applied to the card's ratings. The multiplier range might be say, 0.75 to 1.25, but could be any range. In my theoretical, each card would then play anywhere from 25% worse than normal to 25% better than normal in any given year.
That's one completely unfounded theory any way.

Neezer · 02-14-2019, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abnerdoubleday

While I agree with those who say that the game would be pretty boring if every card was always and exactly as rated, I also agree that there is something more than just random chance at work. The fluctuations are just too great over large numbers of at-bats. Maybe every year the game engine assigns every card a random multiplier that is applied to the card's ratings. The multiplier range might be say, 0.75 to 1.25, but could be any range. In my theoretical, each card would then play anywhere from 25% worse than normal to 25% better than normal in any given year.
That's one completely unfounded theory any way.

i mean the same when I say there are hidden low and how projection ratings.

Its makes no sense for a hitter with a 80 contact rating vs both Right and Left to hit 225 over 162 games.

zrog2000 · 02-14-2019, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

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

Not only that, but 1941 Ted Williams is only an average player in perfect. If every card who should supposedly be getting 8+ WAR a year performs that way, the league would be a complete disaster. Actually, it would be impossible anyway.

zrog2000 · 02-14-2019, 07:11 PM

Quote:

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.

Who is he going to bat .400 off of? Perfect Pedro? What would happen to Pedro's stats then? If every batter performed like they did IRL, every pitcher would look like the worst pitcher of all-time.

atabakin · 02-14-2019, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Who is he going to bat .400 off of? Perfect Pedro? What would happen to Pedro's stats then? If every batter performed like they did IRL, every pitcher would look like the worst pitcher of all-time.

The crazy thing about this game is that more often than not, the other team is trying to win, too!

Thalion · 02-14-2019, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atabakin

The crazy thing about this game is that more often than not, the other team is trying to win, too!

Wait.... wut?

mcdog512 · 02-14-2019, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Who is he going to bat .400 off of? Perfect Pedro? What would happen to Pedro's stats then? If every batter performed like they did IRL, every pitcher would look like the worst pitcher of all-time.

Exactly.....

BPS · 02-14-2019, 09:06 PM

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).

02-14-2019, 01:34 PM	#1
Neezer Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 115	Luck too important in PT Been playing the game and enjoying it....sort of. When I say 'luck is too important" , I mean variability between the same players/cards in the same league. Example, there should not be an almost 200 point Batting Ave difference between 2 1941 Ted Williams that are on separate teams, in the same league, all eventually facing the same teams. Otherwise I see it as a big turn off to the PT part of the game. I also reviewed the stats of all the Trouts in the league. There are 12. The variability between the best and worst is very big. So one teams Trout leads the league in WAR because of good luck and another teams Trout is a below average player because of bad luck? I hope OOTP is noticing this a does something to fix it in 2020.

02-14-2019, 01:41 PM	#2
webdox Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 289	You can't expect to have every 100 Trout perform at 100 every season. The game would REALLY get boring quickly since there always will be multiple Trouts, Mookies, etc... Just like players, some have off years. So your cards will, too. The fun and challenge is to figure out your puzzle pieces and how to arrange your cast of characters each season into a winning product. Knowing all this ahead of time and knowing that every other team faces the same hurdles eases the stress Last edited by webdox; 02-14-2019 at 01:42 PM.

02-14-2019, 02:55 PM	#5
HRBaker Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,090	I've played baseball games for the last 50 years, all the way back to Replay Baseball designed and printed in Carmichaels, PA. In every one of them, players sometimes did better and sometimes did worst - because the possibilities were the result of a "dice roll". I don't know about you, but although 100 rolls of a die will result in fewer 2's and 12's than anything else, I had plenty bad seasons when all I could throw was a 7. Out of all those games, there never was one that was an "exact" replay, because the only way that could ever happen is to start with the player's season stats and subtract each result until you matched the real stats exactly. That is not a game I want to play. __________________

02-14-2019, 03:11 PM	#6
Kushiel All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas Posts: 1,697	I like it fine. Luck is part of everything. Just think if the apple would have fallen behind Newton just 6 inches where would we be? So I keep playing and posting here about playing and other trivial stuff. __________________ *Favente Deo supero*

02-14-2019, 01:55 PM	#3
Dunzie All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2018 Location: Guelph, ON, CAN Posts: 588	It’s on an at bat by at bat basis. Trout doesn’t have the same stats every year. There HAS to be some variability within the game. I find it’s fairly balanced overall although yes the game is prone to some players having off years overall. Also some of the variables can be influenced by you - like the ballpark factors and your team and individual player strategy settings.

02-14-2019, 03:28 PM	#8
BPS All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 711	I think it is possible to both understand random processes AND to believe that the variance of performance of players is possibly greater than explained by a series of independent random draw from the same underlying probability distribution.

02-14-2019, 03:42 PM	#10
Neezer Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 115	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.

02-14-2019, 04:35 PM	#13
Abnerdoubleday Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 203	While I agree with those who say that the game would be pretty boring if every card was always and exactly as rated, I also agree that there is something more than just random chance at work. The fluctuations are just too great over large numbers of at-bats. Maybe every year the game engine assigns every card a random multiplier that is applied to the card's ratings. The multiplier range might be say, 0.75 to 1.25, but could be any range. In my theoretical, each card would then play anywhere from 25% worse than normal to 25% better than normal in any given year. That's one completely unfounded theory any way.

02-14-2019, 09:06 PM	#20
BPS All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 711	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).