|
||||
|
07-21-2006, 07:02 PM | #1 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greater Boston Area
Posts: 3,992
|
1901 statistical anomaly
In 1901 my homerun leaders were hitting 30-40 homers, but in 1902 and 1903 it dropped down to historical 1902 numbers for the most part, which is what I want. How do I get the numbers I want right off the bat?
|
07-21-2006, 07:45 PM | #2 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
|
First season results are always tricky to get right. The auto-adjust historical modifiers function kicks in after the first season is simulated. Copy down the league totals modifier for HRs in the Strategies and Equivalencies screen (not the player-creation modifiers) the game generated in 1902 or 1903. Re-start your league in 1901 and plug in that modifier. Your 1901 HRs should look much better.
|
07-21-2006, 11:56 PM | #3 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greater Boston Area
Posts: 3,992
|
Easy enough to try. Thanks.
|
07-25-2006, 05:21 PM | #4 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greater Boston Area
Posts: 3,992
|
I'm still getting this weirdness. Started a new test league in 1870, over a 162 game season. 1870 had a lot of homers, but I realized that's because it doesn't kick in right away as you said. Thought I had it fixed for 1871 and beyond and told OOTP to use historical modifiers and player creations modifiers. This is what I got....
1870: AL - 475 homers, NL - 643 1871: AL - 21 homers, NL - 27 1872: AL - 789 homers, NL - 788 1873: AL - 20 homers, NL - 15 1874: AL - 754, NL - 713 The strange thing is that runs per game are really low. The leagues average a combined 2.7 rpg in 1874. That's a lot of solo homers. In fact, they both average MORE runs in 1873. Strikeouts and walks also move around big time season to season. The game can't decide what it wants to do. |
07-25-2006, 05:51 PM | #5 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greater Boston Area
Posts: 3,992
|
Even more pronounced in another major league - 9551 (NINE THOUSAND!) homers hit in 1872, 4 hit the next year. The league ERA went from 10.40 to 1.94...
Holy crap. |
07-25-2006, 05:56 PM | #6 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 20 minutes from Comerica Park
Posts: 1,955
|
I always start my league starting in a specific year, ie. 1901 and check the box that says use this years stats or whatever, and the league then actually starts in 1902 and sets everything up for me just fine. Also choosing remainging years of career for stats btw. Anyhoo no probs here starting off like that.
|
07-25-2006, 07:04 PM | #7 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greater Boston Area
Posts: 3,992
|
I always choose remaining years, especially since I started back in 1871...
I just don't understand the ridiculously large and consistent fluctuations. It makes no sense to me how I get a proper deadball-like league every other year and the ones in between are home run hitting contests. |
07-25-2006, 08:08 PM | #8 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newburgh, NY
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
Wow, good catch. I usually start my leagues in 1903 and try to adjust the modifiers prior to the first season. I just did a quick and dirty import of 1903 and checked off the "use this years stats" or whatever it says, and the game started off in January of 1904. I then simmed the season, and the stats came out looking very good. That could be a very helpful toggle. |
|
07-25-2006, 09:02 PM | #9 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
|
Kelric - How did you set up this 1870's league? Is it fictional? The PCM's only go back to 1871, so if you started in 1870 you have modern created players trying to produce 1870's type stats, which would cause a problem. If you wanted to start a historical league in 1871 you need to delete all the fictional players before moving to 1871.
If you want to start an 1871 historical league I have a QS available in my signature, and some other people also made 1871 QS's that you can find at ootpmodsquad.com My 1871 QS file needs to be updated because there are about 8 pitchers in the file with faulty ratings due to a statistical anomaly that we later fixed with the DB. |
Bookmarks |
|
|