Historical Accuracy Overrated?

[phenom]

IIRC, Puresim is dying because Shaun wants a life.

[Nukester]

Originally Posted by phenom

IIRC, Puresim is dying because Shaun wants a life.

Actually he posted a few days ago that he is coming out of his self-imposed exile. He said the game was in his blood. Hes been continuing work on the "community edition" just as much as he has in the past. My guess is that Matrix isnt going to carry the game anymore, but Shaun will continue on his own for awhile. Thats just a guess though

[disposableheros]

there is some randomness thrown in to the ratings by OOTP when importing from a DB. its easy to see it by using commish mode and the editor.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BigCity

If any season out of MLB history was replayed by the same players immediately after they finished the first one, the results would not be the same, and in some cases would be significantly different.

This is a good point.

Phil Birnbaum did a study published in the SABR's The Baseball Research Journal #34 entitled, "Which great teams were just lucky?"

Luck was defined in five ways:

1) Hitters having a career year, playing better than their talent can support
2) Pitchers having a career year, playing better than their talent can support
3) The team was more successful at turning baserunners into runs
4) The opponents were less successful at turning baserunners into runs
5) The club won more games than expected from its runs scored and runs allowed.

After much math presented in the article, Birnbaum then offered his list of the 15 clubs were the luckiest and unluckiest in the 1960-2001 time period. The unluckiest club was the 1962 Mets; they finished 40-120 but correcting for the factors mentioned above they should have been 61-99. The luckiest club was the 2001 Mariners; they finished 116-46 but should have had an 89-73 record based on the criteria of the study.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

DMB, as fine a product as it is, is dying a slow death IMO. Look at their message boards -- they're beginning to eat their own! Puresim also has fallen on hard times. Now's the time for OOTP to strike!!!

IMO, the DMB/SOMs of the world started dying when it became a possibility, and then a reality, to even attempt a career simulation. I was a huge HUGE SOM fan back in the 80s and early 90s. Use to keep dozens of stats by hand, then switched over to the computer game during college. And then I ran across the Tony LaRussa game, which had career sim capabilities. It never worked as well as it should have, even for a rudimentary version, but just the thought of it made me completely drop SOM. Ever since, I've been looking for the Holy Grail of career sims for my favorite sports.

I'm sure there's a market for replay sims, but OOTP would be making a huge mistake by chasing after it to the detriment of career simming. This is the present and future of sports gaming. IMO, despite all of the issues I have with the interface and what could be done better, this is by far the best baseball sim I've ever played, and without question, the best historical sports sim game ever. It's just not designed to do a strict replay, but that's perfectly fine with me.

[BaseballMan]

Since DMB and Puresim were mentioned i thought i would ask if anyone as played
that baseball game "Dynasty?" If so is any good? Or a dont waste your money product.

[Nukester]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm sure there's a market for replay sims, but OOTP would be making a huge mistake by chasing after it to the detriment of career simming.

I agree with this 200%

[dime]

do you have development and coaches on? those are the most obvious variables that will affect everything you're talking about.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

there is some randomness thrown in to the ratings by OOTP when importing from a DB. its easy to see it by using commish mode and the editor.

That's interesting. How much randomness? Too much, maybe?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by dime

do you have development and coaches on? those are the most obvious variables that will affect everything you're talking about.

Did you read the bolded part of the original post?

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

That's interesting. How much randomness? Too much, maybe?

"Too much" is certainly objective. I always considered it a minor adjustment to help vary results if you played the same season multiple times.

I guess something could be said for offering an option to "not" vary the upload. If the formula is to vary stats plus or minus 5%, maybe a switch to bypss that variable would make sense to some.

In the end though, I still don't think you will get the kind of "accuracy" you seem to be looking for.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm sure there's a market for replay sims, but OOTP would be making a huge mistake by chasing after it to the detriment of career simming. This is the present and future of sports gaming. IMO, despite all of the issues I have with the interface and what could be done better, this is by far the best baseball sim I've ever played, and without question, the best historical sports sim game ever. It's just not designed to do a strict replay, but that's perfectly fine with me.

Does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both/and? Only Markus could tell us for sure, but perhaps it wouldn't take a whole lot of work to improve OOTP for single season replays. It's not like Markus has nothing to work with. He's already made significant improvements in the historical aspect of OOTP since last year. Instead of saying, Why? to new ideas, we ought to say Why not?

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by BigCity

"Too much" is certainly objective. I always considered it a minor adjustment to help vary results if you played the same season multiple times.

I guess something could be said for offering an option to "not" vary the upload. If the formula is to vary stats plus or minus 5%, maybe a switch to bypss that variable would make sense to some.

In the end though, I still don't think you will get the kind of "accuracy" you seem to be looking for.

What's one more option, right?

I wouldn't expect the accuracy of DMB (assuming DMB is as accurate as it can get). But I wouldn't want to underestimate what Markus can do, either. His ingenuity never ceases to amaze me!

[LeiterFanatic]

I think the main issue of this thread is not that OOTP is not supposed to replicate history, but rather some threads breathlessly posted by beta testers touted the "uncanny" historical accuracy of 2007 and that maybe one can ditch DMB altogether.

[Zitofan75]

Originally Posted by LeiterFanatic

I think the main issue of this thread is not that OOTP is not supposed to replicate history, but rather some threads breathlessly posted by beta testers touted the "uncanny" historical accuracy of 2007 and that maybe one can ditch DMB altogether.

Perhaps but then different customers are going to demand different levels of historic accuracy. It seems more people are satisfied with the results of historic leagues in 2007 than 2006. But that doesn't mean everyone will be.

[holyswish]

Holy cow. This thread started yesterday at 9PM and the amount of detailed information and replies blows my mind. Don't get me wrong - this is good stuff, but do some of you guys not work. Man. I am so jealous...

[pstrickert]

I ran four different sims of the 1982 season. This time I turned injuries off and trades off (in addition to everything else I turned off previously). I only focused on four players this time: Haas, Vuckovich, Yount, and Thomas. Ratings after import were almost identical each time, so that's good. I'll post a representative sample of ratings for each player.

MOOSE HAAS
4-1/2 Stars
69 Stuff
144 Movement
163 Control
132 Endurance

Resulting stats in a neutral modern ML environment:
137 IP
.266 OAVG
3.41 ERA

Real Life: 193.1 IP, 11-8, 4.47 ERA
Sim 1: 273.2, 24-4, 2.63 ERA, .229 OAVG
Sim 2: 260.2, 25-9, 3.28, .242
Sim 3: 272.1, 19-9, 2.45, .213
Sim 4: 275, 21-8, 2.68, .230

COMMENT: Good consistency! His "resulting stats" (ERA and OAVG) do not look like his simmed stats, though. Why is that? Does anyone know?

PETE VUCKOVICH
1 Star
63 Stuff
161 Movement
86 Control
136 Endurance

Resulting stats in a neutral modern ML environment:
136 IP
.278 OAVG
4.75 ERA

Real Life: 223.2 IP, 18-6, 3.34 ERA (Cy Young Award)
Sim 1: 237.2, 14-9, 3.45, .250 OAVG
Sim 2: 256.2, 19-11, 3.86, .257
Sim 3: 236.1, 17-5, 3.54, .260
Sim 4: 245.1, 18-7, 3.60, .235

COMMENT: Amazing consistency! I'm confused by the difference between "resulting stats" (ERA and OAVG) and his simmed stats. Can anyone explain that?


GORMAN THOMAS
4 Stars
84 BABIP
53 AvoidK
89 Contact
98 Gap
157 Power
119 Eye

Resulting stats in a neutral modern ML environment:
550 AB
35 HR
.243 BA
.332 OBA
.491 SLG
.823 OPS

Real Life: 567 AB, 39 HR, 112 RBI, .245 BA, .343 OBA, .506 SLG, .849 OPS
Sim 1: 559, 27, 81, .222, .305, .403, .708
Sim 2: 546, 39, 115, .278, .374, .546, .919
Sim 3: 552, 25, 72, .219, .308, .397, .705
Sim 4: 557, 37, 90, .266, .360, .517, .877

COMMENT: Stats look decent. Power numbers tended to be less than expected.



ROBIN YOUNT
5 Stars
140 BABIP
148 AvoidK
165 Contact
168 Gap
121 Power
84 Eye

Resulting stats in a neutral modern ML environment:
550 AB
23 HR
.330 BA
.378 OBP
.556 SLG
.934 OPS

Real Life: 635, 29, 114, .331, .379, .578, .957
Sim 1: 647, 22, 112, .351, .387, .555, .942
Sim 2: 641, 18, 101, .320, .374, .485, .859
Sim 3: 628, 16, 90, .269, .317, .428, .746
Sim 4: 641, 31, 118, .315, .359, .543, .902

COMMENT: BA looks OK except for Sim 3. Power numbers lower than expected for the most part. (Same thing happened in my previous "experiment".)


I'm rather pleased with the consistency from one sim to the next. I didn't expect that. I wonder, however, if the Lahman DB import works right for pitchers. I'd welcome any thoughts on that subject. RonCo?

[Russ]

the resulting stats are based off today's MLB not 1982 MLB. That will close the gap a little.

[Syd Thrift]

Geez. Hasn't it been made clear why Haas's replay stats don't fit his real-life stats? 4 replays now and you still haven't shown the ones that matter! Haas in '82 was a great control pitcher who didn't strike out a lot of people but who mostly got really, really unlucky. Unlucky in terms of giving up a higher BABIP than other players on the same team (which happens from time to time) and unlucky in terms of letting people hit him for a higher batting average when runners were on base (OPS 60 points higher than with the bases empty, pretty much all of it due to SLG). If you take a guy with Haas's peripherals and put him into the year 1982, he's much more likely to sport an ERA in the high 2s than in the mid 4s (those are Jamie Moyer stats, after all - lower Ks but in a lower K era so it evens out). Likewise, a pitcher who walks as many batters as he strikes out is probably not that good of a pitcher, flukey good year or otherwise.

This is really the point of "consistency" that Diamond Mind keeps that OOTP doesn't. To my knowledge, they still assume BABIP is the pitcher's responsibility despite all evidence to the contrary. This works on a single-season replay level where the average fan is more interested in seeing Mark Fydrich's 1975 or Allan Anderson's 1988 or Jeff Ballard's 1989 played out again than watching those guys have the very, very average years a bit of luck obscured. However, it's not realistic from a talent-acquisition standpoint, and that standpoint is the standpoint from which you play OOTP.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Geez. Hasn't it been made clear why Haas's replay stats don't fit his real-life stats? 4 replays now and you still haven't shown the ones that matter! Haas in '82 was a great control pitcher who didn't strike out a lot of people but who mostly got really, really unlucky. Unlucky in terms of giving up a higher BABIP than other players on the same team (which happens from time to time) and unlucky in terms of letting people hit him for a higher batting average when runners were on base (OPS 60 points higher than with the bases empty, pretty much all of it due to SLG). If you take a guy with Haas's peripherals and put him into the year 1982, he's much more likely to sport an ERA in the high 2s than in the mid 4s (those are Jamie Moyer stats, after all - lower Ks but in a lower K era so it evens out). Likewise, a pitcher who walks as many batters as he strikes out is probably not that good of a pitcher, flukey good year or otherwise.

This is really the point of "consistency" that Diamond Mind keeps that OOTP doesn't. To my knowledge, they still assume BABIP is the pitcher's responsibility despite all evidence to the contrary. This works on a single-season replay level where the average fan is more interested in seeing Mark Fydrich's 1975 or Allan Anderson's 1988 or Jeff Ballard's 1989 played out again than watching those guys have the very, very average years a bit of luck obscured. However, it's not realistic from a talent-acquisition standpoint, and that standpoint is the standpoint from which you play OOTP.

You obviously know more about it than I do. Thanks for the insight.