Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Earlier versions of Out of the Park Baseball > Earlier versions of OOTP: Historical Simulations

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-13-2010, 06:52 PM   #1
Charlie Hough
Hall Of Famer
 
Charlie Hough's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,625
Angry Pre-Defined Draft Values

We have a pretty serious problem with pre-defined draft values that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure who developed these values, but I've been told that they were supposed to be based on runs created, runs saved, and player longevity.

However, when sorting the Master.csv by draft values (column 34), there are quite obvious errors or otherwise inexplicable problems. This is causing the AI to make poor draft decisions in historical leagues.

Here are some actual examples from the CSV file. I defy anyone to explain and justify why these players would be valued and ranked in this order.

Minnie Minoso - Draft Value 9145 (25th among ALL historical players!)
17 yrs, 1,835 G, .298 AVG, 336 2B, 83 3B, 186 HR, 1,023 RBI, 814 BB

Fred McGriff - Draft Value 8039 (66th overall)
19 yrs, 2,460 G, .284 AVG, 441 2B, 24 3B, 493 HR, 1,550 RBI, 1,305 BB

Jimmy Zinn - Draft Value 7467 (101st overall)
5 yrs, 18 G, 105.1 IP, 5.04 ERA

Earl Caldwell - Draft Value 7300 (118th overall)
8 yrs, 200 G, 587.2 IP, 4.69 ERA

Steve Garvey - Draft Value 6704 (186th overall)
19 yrs, 2332 G, 440 2B, 43 3B, 272 HR, 1,308 RBI, 479 BB

Lefty Gomez - Draft Value 3371 (1702 overall)
14 yrs, 368 G, 2503 IP, 3.34 ERA

Stan Musial - Draft Value 3751 (1346th overall)
22 yrs, 3,026 G, .331 AVG, 725 2B, 177 3B, 475 HR, 1,951 RBI, 1,599 BB

Sandy Koufax - Draft Value 1792 (4042nd overall)
12 yrs, 397 G, 2324.1 IP, 2.76 ERA


The Master.csv is filled with draft values that do not make sense. I'm sorry, but I can't accept Chuck Tanner having a higher draft value and being taken in a draft ahead of Clete Boyer, Ted Abernathy, and Sandy Koufax! By the way, OOTP gives Koufax a 1-star potential in the draft pool anyway, despite having complete scouting turned off! Thanks to this and his senseless draft value, he went in the 4th round of a 1954 draft, right after Herb Moford, who pitched 50 games in his career for an ERA of 5.03!

I'm hoping others will chime in and we can figure out a way to fix this.
Charlie Hough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2010, 06:54 PM   #2
bubba22plus
All Star Reserve
 
bubba22plus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equestria
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Hough View Post
We have a pretty serious problem with pre-defined draft values that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure who developed these values, but I've been told that they were supposed to be based on runs created, runs saved, and player longevity.

However, when sorting the Master.csv by draft values (column 34), there are quite obvious errors or otherwise inexplicable problems. This is causing the AI to make poor draft decisions in historical leagues.

Here are some actual examples from the CSV file. I defy anyone to explain and justify why these players would be valued and ranked in this order.

Minnie Minoso - Draft Value 9145 (25th among ALL historical players!)
17 yrs, 1,835 G, .298 AVG, 336 2B, 83 3B, 186 HR, 1,023 RBI, 814 BB

Fred McGriff - Draft Value 8039 (66th overall)
19 yrs, 2,460 G, .284 AVG, 441 2B, 24 3B, 493 HR, 1,550 RBI, 1,305 BB

Jimmy Zinn - Draft Value 7467 (101st overall)
5 yrs, 18 G, 105.1 IP, 5.04 ERA

Earl Caldwell - Draft Value 7300 (118th overall)
8 yrs, 200 G, 587.2 IP, 4.69 ERA

Steve Garvey - Draft Value 6704 (186th overall)
19 yrs, 2332 G, 440 2B, 43 3B, 272 HR, 1,308 RBI, 479 BB

Lefty Gomez - Draft Value 3371 (1702 overall)
14 yrs, 368 G, 2503 IP, 3.34 ERA

Stan Musial - Draft Value 3751 (1346th overall)
22 yrs, 3,026 G, .331 AVG, 725 2B, 177 3B, 475 HR, 1,951 RBI, 1,599 BB

Sandy Koufax - Draft Value 1792 (4042nd overall)
12 yrs, 397 G, 2324.1 IP, 2.76 ERA


The Master.csv is filled with draft values that do not make sense. I'm sorry, but I can't accept Chuck Tanner having a higher draft value and being taken in a draft ahead of Clete Boyer, Ted Abernathy, and Sandy Koufax! By the way, OOTP gives Koufax a 1-star potential in the draft pool anyway, despite having complete scouting turned off! Thanks to this and his senseless draft value, he went in the 4th round of a 1954 draft, right after Herb Moford, who pitched 50 games in his career for an ERA of 5.03!

I'm hoping others will chime in and we can figure out a way to fix this.
That's like the only plausible one on the list.
__________________
OOTP Resident Brony
bubba22plus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 06:33 PM   #3
Charlie Hough
Hall Of Famer
 
Charlie Hough's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,625
Am I out of my mind, or does it seem like virtually no one is actually bothered by this glaring, critical problem? Or at least not bothered enough to post a response or do anything about it? Judging by the silence here and in my other attempts to raise this to the attention of the OOTP crew, this must be deemed insignificant. But it is an absolute show-stopping problem for historical play.

Last edited by Charlie Hough; 04-15-2010 at 06:43 PM.
Charlie Hough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 08:43 PM   #4
bubba22plus
All Star Reserve
 
bubba22plus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equestria
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Hough View Post
Am I out of my mind, or does it seem like virtually no one is actually bothered by this glaring, critical problem? Or at least not bothered enough to post a response or do anything about it? Judging by the silence here and in my other attempts to raise this to the attention of the OOTP crew, this must be deemed insignificant. But it is an absolute show-stopping problem for historical play.
Oh, don't worry, it's an issue for me.

I was just pointing out that Fred McGriff is the only one that possibly belongs up there.

That being said, i am biased so...

Either way, i always wanted to use this feature but never found rhyme or reason why.

I'm sorry that it seemed i didn't care, because i do.
__________________
OOTP Resident Brony
bubba22plus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 08:54 PM   #5
actionjackson
Hall Of Famer
 
actionjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Hough View Post
Am I out of my mind, or does it seem like virtually no one is actually bothered by this glaring, critical problem? Or at least not bothered enough to post a response or do anything about it? Judging by the silence here and in my other attempts to raise this to the attention of the OOTP crew, this must be deemed insignificant. But it is an absolute show-stopping problem for historical play.
I don't think you're out of your mind. I went on a little crusade about it in OOTP 10, but that was more related to using a modded database and the fact that in order to use said database, I had to remove the historical database.odb file. I was informed by Spritze that doing so rendered the draft rating null and void and therefore the computer picked alphabetically, which is even worse than your situation, unless of course you think David Aardsma (with all due respect to him and his family) going first in his draft year and Carl Yastrzemski and Cy Young getting picked in the leftovers section of their respective draft years is a good thing.

You are correct sir. It is broken, and the only solution unfortunately (for now) is to turn it off. The crazy thing is that the other two things that were supposed to be exclusive to the historical database.odb file (historical pitches and positional experience) worked flawlessly for my games. Only the draft values were fubared when modding. I share your frustration. Garlon and Spritze created that part of the Master.csv/Historical Database.odb based on career Runs Created or some such stat and it has not worked. My suggestion is a gentle ping in their general direction, remembering that a) They are volunteers who do this as a hobby and have contributed a great deal to this game and b) Just about everything that's ever been introduced to the game has fallen short of what everyone around here has come to expect, but that eventually it makes its way up to the level of other features of the game that came before it. Yes, some other things are probably still broken in 11 (despite the as yet mostly empty technical support section), but the fact is there isn't another game with this much depth and options that allows you to play in career mode.

My suggestion would be for you to purchase the WAR database (1871-2009) from this site and maybe write over the draft values with career WAR or RAR (forgive me Garlon and Spritze , it's just a temporary fix) in order to produce more realistic draft results, although to be fair IRL there ain't no such thing as a surefire prospect.

You could also do what I do and turn off the draft values thingy and write over the names, nicknames, nationalities...anything that gives away a player's identity and use 20,000 (about 17,500 actually) or so fake names (generated and sent to your e-mail box for free at this site) in the firstname; lastname columns so you have no idea who is who and play with ratings turned off so you're completely blind (i.e. closer to the level of the AI).

Understandably, that is not everyone's cup of tea, but it gets rid of the Monday morning quarterback draft syndrome, whereby you basically know how things will turn out for each player in the draft, while the AI is somewhat clueless. Unfortunately, it also gets rid of the ability to play historical games with your childhood heroes - just as in real life there are trade-offs, and it's up to you to decide what's acceptable for you. You can always change the database back to its original form once you've taken a game as far as you're going to take it to see how your favourite players did.

While we're on the subject could somebody possibly fix things up so that historical gamers who play with modded databases can utilize this potentially great and equalizing feature if and when it is fixed? Thankyou from an intermediate computer user who wouldn't have the first clue how to do so.
actionjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 08:55 PM   #6
Eckstein 4 Prez
Hall Of Famer
 
Eckstein 4 Prez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The OC
Posts: 6,347
I don't even know what this feature is or what it does, although certainly if that's the all-time ranking of those players most of them are way off.

That said, Steve Garvey's rank looks pretty darn close. He's probably a little overrated - I doubt Garvey is in the top 200 all-time, considering there are about 200 people in the Hall of Fame - but still pretty damn close. Garvey is definitely ranked higher than, say, 250.
__________________
Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.
Eckstein 4 Prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 09:31 PM   #7
actionjackson
Hall Of Famer
 
actionjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez View Post
I don't even know what this feature is or what it does, although certainly if that's the all-time ranking of those players most of them are way off.

That said, Steve Garvey's rank looks pretty darn close. He's probably a little overrated - I doubt Garvey is in the top 200 all-time, considering there are about 200 people in the Hall of Fame - but still pretty damn close. Garvey is definitely ranked higher than, say, 250.
I think it's closer to top 500. Sean Smith's WAR database has him ranked at 334 among position players and his WAR of 35.9 puts him in a tie with pitcher Jim Whitney, who is ranked #164 among pitchers. Still 500ish out of 17,500 (top 3%) or so all-time players is nothing to sneeze at, so your basic point about Garvey having been a very good player stands. WAR is by no means the be-all end-all of baseball stats, but I think it's a very good starting point because it measures a player's total contributions (offense, defense, pitching, baserunning etc) to his team and adjusts for position, which probably hurts Garvey because he played a position where offensive production particularly in the power department is expected. His relative lack of power as a 1B and his refusal to draw walks probably hurt him too. Top 3% to me is not HoF, but it is Hall of Pretty Damned Good.
actionjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 09:35 PM   #8
Eckstein 4 Prez
Hall Of Famer
 
Eckstein 4 Prez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The OC
Posts: 6,347
It's funny, because Garvey was one of the few players of the 1980s who was constantly referred to as a future Hall of Famer. Yeah, he was always overrated back in the day, but I just don't think I buy him as #500. Maybe top 250 is too high, I suppose.

Anyway, it's kind of beside the point. No worries.
__________________
Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.
Eckstein 4 Prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 09:47 PM   #9
actionjackson
Hall Of Famer
 
actionjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez View Post
I don't even know what this feature is or what it does, although certainly if that's the all-time ranking of those players most of them are way off.
It is supposed to eliminate the problem of very good historical players falling to the human player in the later rounds of the amateur draft, but as Charlie Hough has eloquently demonstrated it can't possibly do that given how it is set up now, unless it is supposed to be a reflection of the player's ability level based on how he played in his first 2 or 3 seasons. That's not the impression I got from discussions I saw about it. I thought it was supposed to be a reflection of the player's entire career. The checkbox is located in Game Setup > League Setup > Rules > Amateur Draft Rules between the Enable Amateur Draft checkbox and the Amateur Draft Date line. As stated above for now definitely leave it unchecked as it needs work.
actionjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 09:58 PM   #10
Spritze
OOTP Historical Czar
 
Spritze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bothell Wa
Posts: 7,254
Draft Value is based on OWP and DWP and RC/27 and Career Length. I believe that is short for Offensive (Batters) and Defensive (pitchers) Winning Pcts. So far I have not been able to find the formulas that produce these values in the statistical neutering program but if I delete the old values from the output table the neutering process produces new ones. The new values do NOT match the ones that are in the game currently. I do not know if these new values are "better" but they are different.

I suspect the value creation process may need to start with a "tabla rosa" and I probably missed that step when I added this new DV process to the previously existing statistical neutralization process. That or something like it might be why the numbers are off. They are being added to rather than replaced by is my guess. I do not know this for a fact but something like this is definitely at play.

Unfortunately my paying job is taking all my time right now but I should be able to review and fix this for one of the patches. At the moment it is too big a job to trace the code without having the necessary time to do it. There is nearly a gigabyte of code and data to sift and I didn't name the process "draft value" and it wasn't until today that I found the OWP output table and figured out that was at least a part of the DV process. Now that I know at least a portion of the subprocess (and what I named it 2 years ago) it should make finding the rest easier.

Anyway....Sorry if some of you are creeped out

I've been using it as it stands and really I personally kind of like it that not all the sure things are bunched at the very top of round 1. I find it interesting to be able to grab a pretty fair country player in round 5. Maybe thats just because I play rather than sim though. Different strokes for different folks.
Spritze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 10:29 PM   #11
actionjackson
Hall Of Famer
 
actionjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez View Post
It's funny, because Garvey was one of the few players of the 1980s who was constantly referred to as a future Hall of Famer. Yeah, he was always overrated back in the day, but I just don't think I buy him as #500. Maybe top 250 is too high, I suppose.

Anyway, it's kind of beside the point. No worries.
Remembering that these guys brought different skill sets (some more defensive than offensive) and strengths to the table and played different positions, here are some players in Garvey's immediate area on that list who played at some point during his career: position players: Bill Madlock, Kent Hrbek, Paul O'Neill, Don Buford, Rico Petrocelli, Lance Parrish, Jesse Barfield, Curt Flood and pitchers: Chris Short and Andy Messersmith. Wow! Curt Flood and Andy Messersmith are that close in career WAR. Where's Marvin Miller?
actionjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 10:42 PM   #12
Charlie Hough
Hall Of Famer
 
Charlie Hough's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,625
Spritze, thanks very much for your response. I still wasn't clear about who had actually worked on these values, so it's good to know that you're the person. If there is anything that I or anyone else can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. I'm just hoping for a solution and not looking to beat anyone up for it.

By the way, I play out my games and don't sim through, so I probably play the game similarly to your style. But I don't like seeing great players drop unrealistically to later rounds, thus giving the human manager easy pickings to stock an organization with future stars. Others seem to have similar concerns.

The fact that you're now seeing some conflicting values when you produced new output may confirm my suspicion, which is that some aspect of the formula used to produce these numbers went awry or values were scrambled by an output or sorting process. Some of the values seem perfectly fine and are in an appropriate sequence. Others seem nonsensical.

I hope it's not a problem with the formula itself, although I had suspicions about longevity at first. The two weakest players I used in my examples above are both players who were out of the majors for a number of seasons but reappeared later. Their actual total number of seasons is low, but those seasons were spread out over a much longer time. So I wondered if the beginning and ending dates of their careers might have caused them to get a skewed effect based on supposed longevity.

The only problem with that theory is that some of the other examples were players who had even longer careers based on number of seasons and the starting and ending dates of their careers. So they should be rated higher.

My only other theory is that some of the values may have been scrambled by an erroneous partial sort or another function that may have changed some of the values.

Last edited by Charlie Hough; 04-15-2010 at 10:54 PM.
Charlie Hough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 11:08 PM   #13
Spritze
OOTP Historical Czar
 
Spritze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bothell Wa
Posts: 7,254
Keep in mind that this number is produced AFTER neutralization and INCLUDES gap seasons. So that player with the career gap gets credit for all the years he played BASEBALL not just his major league career.
Spritze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 11:26 PM   #14
actionjackson
Hall Of Famer
 
actionjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spritze View Post
Anyway....Sorry if some of you are creeped out
Apology not accepted, because with all the effort you've poured into this game over the years, there's no need for you to apologize. What are ya, Canadian?
actionjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 12:17 AM   #15
Spritze
OOTP Historical Czar
 
Spritze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bothell Wa
Posts: 7,254
Found the formulas!!!! Yay!!!!!
Spritze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 12:28 PM   #16
actionjackson
Hall Of Famer
 
actionjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spritze View Post
Found the formulas!!!! Yay!!!!!
w00t!
actionjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 02:28 PM   #17
Spritze
OOTP Historical Czar
 
Spritze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bothell Wa
Posts: 7,254
Ya know, roughly if a player is in the top 4,000 he is most likely a first round draft pick, top 8,000 = second round etc. So I guess I'm not quite understanding the challenge. Keep in mind 139 years worth of players are grouped together so that means 1-139 might be #1 overall draft picks.

The Koufax example is still a first round pick or close and he only had 5 good years and the rest pretty much stunk. Looks like Garlon's formulas are pretty dang good to me, they might not match Houghs expectations but I think the reason the formulas are a bit vague is probably to merely put players in large groups.

That said I see some things that could be added to help sort out players a little bit better but I'm not sure it would really change things all that much. But since this is being looked at might as well try a change or two. I'll use the various Spritze db's I'll make on Sunday as test beds. Can't hurt.

ALSO draft value has zero, nada, nothing, whatsoever to do with how OOTP calculates a players potential. So don't mix these two things together please.

Last edited by Spritze; 04-16-2010 at 02:31 PM.
Spritze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 05:22 PM   #18
CarolinaSoxfan
Minors (Triple A)
 
CarolinaSoxfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson View Post
I don't think you're out of your mind. I went on a little crusade about it in OOTP 10, but that was more related to using a modded database and the fact that in order to use said database, I had to remove the historical database.odb file. I was informed by Spritze that doing so rendered the draft rating null and void and therefore the computer picked alphabetically, which is even worse than your situation, unless of course you think David Aardsma (with all due respect to him and his family) going first in his draft year and Carl Yastrzemski and Cy Young getting picked in the leftovers section of their respective draft years is a good thing.

You are correct sir. It is broken, and the only solution unfortunately (for now) is to turn it off. The crazy thing is that the other two things that were supposed to be exclusive to the historical database.odb file (historical pitches and positional experience) worked flawlessly for my games. Only the draft values were fubared when modding. I share your frustration. Garlon and Spritze created that part of the Master.csv/Historical Database.odb based on career Runs Created or some such stat and it has not worked. My suggestion is a gentle ping in their general direction, remembering that a) They are volunteers who do this as a hobby and have contributed a great deal to this game and b) Just about everything that's ever been introduced to the game has fallen short of what everyone around here has come to expect, but that eventually it makes its way up to the level of other features of the game that came before it. Yes, some other things are probably still broken in 11 (despite the as yet mostly empty technical support section), but the fact is there isn't another game with this much depth and options that allows you to play in career mode.

My suggestion would be for you to purchase the WAR database (1871-2009) from this site and maybe write over the draft values with career WAR or RAR (forgive me Garlon and Spritze , it's just a temporary fix) in order to produce more realistic draft results, although to be fair IRL there ain't no such thing as a surefire prospect.

You could also do what I do and turn off the draft values thingy and write over the names, nicknames, nationalities...anything that gives away a player's identity and use 20,000 (about 17,500 actually) or so fake names (generated and sent to your e-mail box for free at this site) in the firstname; lastname columns so you have no idea who is who and play with ratings turned off so you're completely blind (i.e. closer to the level of the AI).

Understandably, that is not everyone's cup of tea, but it gets rid of the Monday morning quarterback draft syndrome, whereby you basically know how things will turn out for each player in the draft, while the AI is somewhat clueless. Unfortunately, it also gets rid of the ability to play historical games with your childhood heroes - just as in real life there are trade-offs, and it's up to you to decide what's acceptable for you. You can always change the database back to its original form once you've taken a game as far as you're going to take it to see how your favourite players did.

While we're on the subject could somebody possibly fix things up so that historical gamers who play with modded databases can utilize this potentially great and equalizing feature if and when it is fixed? Thankyou from an intermediate computer user who wouldn't have the first clue how to do so.
This is not good...but what happens when you turn it off..will the AI draft guys that make more sense? The other way around is to have the AI draft for you..kind of sucks but this way it is fair across the board and if you happen to have Koufax drop to you in the fourth round and the AI takes him for you then it is a great find I guess..I think that is how I might play
CarolinaSoxfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 05:36 PM   #19
actionjackson
Hall Of Famer
 
actionjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaSoxfan View Post
This is not good...but what happens when you turn it off..will the AI draft guys that make more sense? The other way around is to have the AI draft for you..kind of sucks but this way it is fair across the board and if you happen to have Koufax drop to you in the fourth round and the AI takes him for you then it is a great find I guess..I think that is how I might play
Never thought of that, but that is another possibility at least for those of us that are OK with relinquishing some control to the AI for the sake of league balance which is what we all want once we tire of building super teams that win 130 games every season. Good idea CSF.
actionjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 05:38 PM   #20
Spritze
OOTP Historical Czar
 
Spritze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bothell Wa
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
I was informed by Spritze that doing so rendered the draft rating null and void and therefore the computer picked alphabetically" .
The alphabet thing is merely because all players in modded db's back in those ancient OOTPx days of yore had a draft value of NULL. They were ALL tied for the top rung. Nothing made anything Null and Void. There just weren't no data there at all which is considered a NULL. Voiding is what women do to men after they have emptied the mans bank accounts. That then leaves the feller with a $0.00 balance which is NOT null. Zero means you don't have any, null means you never did.

Last edited by Spritze; 04-16-2010 at 05:43 PM.
Spritze is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments