Memory and Ratings, and Never the Twain Shall Meet

theinnominator · 07-16-2007, 03:47 PM

I am using the latest version of the game on an old iBook, right at the minimum memory requirements for the game.

My questions are how much does being at the fringe affect gameplay? Are the results I am getting (i.e. game scores, individual performances) the same as if I had a faster machine? And how much do ratings really correlate to performances?

The context of my questions is two full games I played using numbers from the Lahman database for the 1985 season. In the first game, I had potential ratings tied to peak seasons, player development disabled and I did not have ratings recalculated. In the second, I had potential ratings tied to career totals, disabled development, and I did have the ratings set to be recalculated using five years of data. Now, using the young (at the time) Yankees right-hander Brian Fisher as an example, in the first game he was rated in the high 70s, which matched his real-life impact on the Yankees' bullpen, and he was lights out during ballgames. In the second game, his rating plummeted to a 34. What gives?

Another example: In the first game, Dayle Murray and John Montefusco, two guys who combined to pitch nine innings for the Yankees in 1985, were both rated 20 and spent the year out of sight in the minors. In the second game, Murray is rated 69 and is, after Dave Righetti, my highest-rated reliever; he has an E.R.A. of zero in 24 spring-training innings. Montefusco is my No. 2 starter, with a rating of 57, eclipsing four of the five members of the real-life rotation, none of whom were rated higher than 29.

Now, Yankee hating and a real critique of the 1985 team's pitching weaknesses aside, is all this a function of my laptop struggling to keep up with O.O.T.P.'s brain, or did I jack up the game settings? I was aiming for players to match their historical performances.

How much do ratings matter? Will Brian Fisher pitch like a pitcher with a rating of 34? I played another game, set up like my second 85 game, using numbers from 1961. The E.R.A. leader that season was Bennie Daniels, who had a 16-1 record and was rated 51. The guy behind him in my rotation was Gaylord Perry, a Hall of Famer in his rookie season, rated at 71 who limped to a 9-12 record and 4.01 E.R.A.

Is my slow machine giving me funky results? I noticed that many of the players who have just one or two homers in a real-life season, also will have one or two in O.O.T.P. But they seem to get those homers against me. Case in point, Ed Jurak, of the 1985 Red Sox, who the A.I. stubbornly starts over Glenn Hoffman. Jurak had one homer in his career; he has had four in two go-arounds of the 1985 season, all in games against me.

Is my slow machine affecting how the database is imported? It takes me more than 12 hours to load any season after about 1960 or so. I wonder if my laptop is spinning its wheels part of that time, and if the numbers coming in are affected.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Kelric · 07-17-2007, 12:21 PM

I can't imagine that a slow machine would change how the game runs in any way, aside from... well... being slow. I, too, have an old slow machine and everything runs fine statistically. That's not the problem.

In the second game, you have it tied to career totals. Was Fisher constantly good throughout his career, or was his peak really that much better than his down years? (I'm too lazy to look him up.)

I would imagine the differences you are seeing are merely because of the game settings you created being so different. A peak season is just that - the best a guy has ever or will ever perform. Career totals can paint a vastly different picture. Adrian Beltre, for example.

And for the coincidental homers, it's just a coincidence.

Ratings are the core of the game - they matter immensely. That said, players can fluctuate from season to season. A guy rated 10 out of 10 in all categories can be super human for his entire career but have one or two off years in there, simply because sometimes bad seasons happen.

theinnominator · 07-17-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelric

Was Fisher constantly good throughout his career, or was his peak really that much better than his down years? (I'm too lazy to look him up.) ...I would imagine the differences you are seeing are merely because of the game settings you created being so different.

Fisher never amounted to much; in fact, after posting an E.R.A. in the low 2.00s, he never had one below 4.00 the rest of his career. The Yankees traded him to the Pirates after the 1986 season. So, a rating of 34 is probably right on the money -- if you consider the whole of his career. ...It seems obvious that I jacked up my game settings. And maybe I am unjustly underestimating the power punch packed by Ed Jurak.

07-16-2007, 03:47 PM	#1
theinnominator Bat Boy Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2	Memory and Ratings, and Never the Twain Shall Meet I am using the latest version of the game on an old iBook, right at the minimum memory requirements for the game. My questions are how much does being at the fringe affect gameplay? Are the results I am getting (i.e. game scores, individual performances) the same as if I had a faster machine? And how much do ratings really correlate to performances? The context of my questions is two full games I played using numbers from the Lahman database for the 1985 season. In the first game, I had potential ratings tied to peak seasons, player development disabled and I did not have ratings recalculated. In the second, I had potential ratings tied to career totals, disabled development, and I did have the ratings set to be recalculated using five years of data. Now, using the young (at the time) Yankees right-hander Brian Fisher as an example, in the first game he was rated in the high 70s, which matched his real-life impact on the Yankees' bullpen, and he was lights out during ballgames. In the second game, his rating plummeted to a 34. What gives? Another example: In the first game, Dayle Murray and John Montefusco, two guys who combined to pitch nine innings for the Yankees in 1985, were both rated 20 and spent the year out of sight in the minors. In the second game, Murray is rated 69 and is, after Dave Righetti, my highest-rated reliever; he has an E.R.A. of zero in 24 spring-training innings. Montefusco is my No. 2 starter, with a rating of 57, eclipsing four of the five members of the real-life rotation, none of whom were rated higher than 29. Now, Yankee hating and a real critique of the 1985 team's pitching weaknesses aside, is all this a function of my laptop struggling to keep up with O.O.T.P.'s brain, or did I jack up the game settings? I was aiming for players to match their historical performances. How much do ratings matter? Will Brian Fisher pitch like a pitcher with a rating of 34? I played another game, set up like my second 85 game, using numbers from 1961. The E.R.A. leader that season was Bennie Daniels, who had a 16-1 record and was rated 51. The guy behind him in my rotation was Gaylord Perry, a Hall of Famer in his rookie season, rated at 71 who limped to a 9-12 record and 4.01 E.R.A. Is my slow machine giving me funky results? I noticed that many of the players who have just one or two homers in a real-life season, also will have one or two in O.O.T.P. But they seem to get those homers against me. Case in point, Ed Jurak, of the 1985 Red Sox, who the A.I. stubbornly starts over Glenn Hoffman. Jurak had one homer in his career; he has had four in two go-arounds of the 1985 season, all in games against me. Is my slow machine affecting how the database is imported? It takes me more than 12 hours to load any season after about 1960 or so. I wonder if my laptop is spinning its wheels part of that time, and if the numbers coming in are affected. Any thoughts are welcome.

07-17-2007, 12:21 PM	#2
Kelric Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Greater Boston Area Posts: 3,992	I can't imagine that a slow machine would change how the game runs in any way, aside from... well... being slow. I, too, have an old slow machine and everything runs fine statistically. That's not the problem. In the second game, you have it tied to career totals. Was Fisher constantly good throughout his career, or was his peak really that much better than his down years? (I'm too lazy to look him up.) I would imagine the differences you are seeing are merely because of the game settings you created being so different. A peak season is just that - the best a guy has ever or will ever perform. Career totals can paint a vastly different picture. Adrian Beltre, for example. And for the coincidental homers, it's just a coincidence. Ratings are the core of the game - they matter immensely. That said, players can fluctuate from season to season. A guy rated 10 out of 10 in all categories can be super human for his entire career but have one or two off years in there, simply because sometimes bad seasons happen.