Question for those who enjoy hist leagues

[SittingDuck]

I've always wanted to set up a mid-60's league and give it a whirl.

However, the thing that gets me is that somehow it seems.... silly? Lacking the word here. But what I know is that I'll want to trade for Palmer, Seaver and Jenkins, to get Schmidt when he comes up, and so forth.

Knowing who to go for because who know they were great players somehow seems to bleed it away, because the AI has no clue when they are younger.

So someone fill me in on what I may be missing here, or give me another perspective to consider, please.

[Kelric]

Easy: turn auto-recalc off. Players will still import with Potential commensorate with their real life ability, but the game engine will take over with no recalc and guys can get hurt, lose Potential, completely bust, etc., etc., etc.

I never use recalc. What I do is set Injuries to Low and change the Talent Change Modifier (or whatever it is called) to 75, which lowers the chance of Talent Drops (and Improvements), but still allows players to get better or worse while keeping most of the point of having a historical league.

[SittingDuck]

Oh sweet! Thanks for all that.

[Charlie Hough]

The AI has a clue based on their potential ratings. Sure, the AI cannot see the statistical history that you can see in the future, but a player like Seaver or Palmer will be created with huge potential. So the AI can see that and will act on it. Just watch what happens in an initial draft, whether you use historical or fictional players. The AI will snatch up some of those young studs even though their current ratings are not very good. So the AI is not blind.

You lose a lot of realistic player development if you don't use the auto-calculation. But if you don't mind that players like Seaver and Palmer could potentially be useless in your baseball universe, and Paul Splitorff could become the next Sandy Koufax, then by all means you may want to consider that option instead.

[Base Stealer]

Originally Posted by Kelric

Easy: turn auto-recalc off. Players will still import with Potential commensorate with their real life ability, but the game engine will take over with no recalc and guys can get hurt, lose Potential, completely bust, etc., etc., etc.

I never use recalc. What I do is set Injuries to Low and change the Talent Change Modifier (or whatever it is called) to 75, which lowers the chance of Talent Drops (and Improvements), but still allows players to get better or worse while keeping most of the point of having a historical league.

I also set injuries to low, but i use 50 or even 25 for the talent change....i find 100 to be too much. With recalc off it adds some mistery to the game...
I hope that in ootp 9 the improved aging and development model will fix this

[BeachBum]

I do a "Worst to First" concept. That means that I manage a team until they win the World Series, then resign from that team and manage the team that finished last. So you get Seaver, Jenkins, etc. and have them until you win the championship, then you have to leave them behind and start over again. Sometimes, you can wrangle a trade for them a second time but I have not been able to do it a third time. The AI just knows they are good by that time and because you now have the worst team you really do not have quality players to trade.

I have done this both using a draft and having the rookies go to their original teams. It is more difficult if you do not use the draft because then you do have to trade your existing (i.e. bad) players for good ones.

[BeachBum]

I do a "Worst to First" concept. That means that I manage a team until they win the World Series, then resign from that team and manage the team that finished last. So you get Seaver, Jenkins, etc. and have them until you win the championship, then you have to leave them behind and start over again. Sometimes, you can wrangle a trade for them a second time but I have not been able to do it a third time. The AI just knows they are good by that time and because you now have the worst team you really do not have quality players to trade.

I have done this both using a draft and having the rookies go to their original teams. It is more difficult if you do not use the draft because then you do have to trade your existing (i.e. bad) players for good ones.

[Base Stealer]

Originally Posted by BeachBum

I do a "Worst to First" concept.

Interesting idea, but i really become jealous of my best players after a few years...on the other side your method would give me the opportunity to use different great players in the same carreer

[SittingDuck]

Originally Posted by Kelric

Easy: turn auto-recalc off. Players will still import with Potential commensorate with their real life ability, but the game engine will take over with no recalc and guys can get hurt, lose Potential, completely bust, etc., etc., etc.

I never use recalc. What I do is set Injuries to Low and change the Talent Change Modifier (or whatever it is called) to 75, which lowers the chance of Talent Drops (and Improvements), but still allows players to get better or worse while keeping most of the point of having a historical league.

Got a question for you, Kelric.

What occurs to guys like Carlton who import (w/ Gambo DB) with very low endurance? These guys on recalc get their historic endurance levels set each season, so Carlton's endurance does indeed rise with recalc, but since endurance has no 'potential', it seems pretty much stuck when it comes to the imported ratings when on no recalc. Same thing for speed, stealing, etc - all the ratings that have no potential aspect.

And so to me, this is where the 'No Recalc' has a deficiency. Otherwise I'd use it each and every time.

What I am doing now, however, is the 3-yr recalc with player development set to 133, so that allows some in-season change. However, what is sad is that players cannot just tank for their career (or become great) as the recalc puts them back in their historic zone.

[Kelric]

It isn't so much a no recalc deficiency as it is a deficiency with how the database and game handle such a guy. But, really, it isn't their fault either. It makes perfect sense for some guys to be imported as relievers since that is how they started, all part of the 'alternative history' approach, you know?

I either let a guy such as that stay as a reliever or, in the case of Carlton where he is simply unacceptable as anything but a starter, I'll manually edit him during the amateur draft to look more acceptable to me. I do the same with players and their defense when they are imported with low defense when by all accounts they were considered by their peers to be excellent defenders (whether they were statistically or not). If I am playing with intelligence/work ethic/other stuff on (though I never use morale), I'll edit guys rates there if I think some things aren't right (like Ted Williams coming in with no intelligence or work ethic).

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by SittingDuck

Got a question for you, Kelric.

What occurs to guys like Carlton who import (w/ Gambo DB) with very low endurance? These guys on recalc get their historic endurance levels set each season, so Carlton's endurance does indeed rise with recalc, but since endurance has no 'potential', it seems pretty much stuck when it comes to the imported ratings when on no recalc. Same thing for speed, stealing, etc - all the ratings that have no potential aspect.

And so to me, this is where the 'No Recalc' has a deficiency. Otherwise I'd use it each and every time.

What I am doing now, however, is the 3-yr recalc with player development set to 133, so that allows some in-season change. However, what is sad is that players cannot just tank for their career (or become great) as the recalc puts them back in their historic zone.

I don't see how it's a deficiency. If you want accurate realism, you use recalc. If you want randoomness, you don't use it.

That's part of the beauty of not using it, the randomness. A guy like Carlton might turn out to be one of the best closers of all time instead of a 300 game winner.

The game doesn't have a "partial" recalc function. The only option if you want the duration/base stealing accuracy is to edit the players yourself when they come in.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by BruceM

I don't see how it's a deficiency. If you want accurate realism, you use recalc. If you want randoomness, you don't use it.

I disagree. I see it as a deficiency that creates the need for modified databases. I have more of a problem with the assigning of positions, but the 300 game winner stuck as a middle reliever is a problem for me too. And no, I don't want to use the recalc function because it ensures a too realistic career path for me. I want the randomness of pitching and hitting development with players who play the positions they actually played. A recalc defense only button is the only way I would even consider the recalc function as a viable option for me.

[BeachBum]

If you are not using recalc and are not interested in obtaining results similar to real life, why are you playing a historical game rather than a fictional game?

If Sandy Koufax is not an awesome pitcher, his name might as well be Joe Smith. It is enjoyable to see what might happen in different scenarios such as Koufax pitching in Fenway or Aaron hitting in the Astrodome. This is especially true with the now available naturalized stats.

Again, if you do not want the players to perform somewhat as they did IRL, there is no reason to play historical.

[BeachBum]

Here are a couple of ways to minimize the situation of knowing who the best players are and getting them.

Do not use a draft but rather have the players assigned to the original team. This means you will have to trade something for them.

Set trading frequency to low or very low. This will make it even more difficult to trade for these players.

Set years to free agency low and play a small market team. This will result in not being able to afford these players in a few years. Also trading or losing them affects fan loyalty which increases the problem.

[SittingDuck]

Some good comments here, so I am glad I dragged this back out into the light of day. It will also be good for some of the total newbs around here.

Well, a few points. What I seek is a league where historical greats have a decent, but not absolute chance of reproducing their careers. A semi-historical run, if you will. I don't like or want historical replay. I like that with recalc off Carlton might be a toad. This is what makes the whole draft/trade thing great. I watched Morgan turn out to be horrible, and somehow I got a thrill out of that (maybe its the ESPN thing). I like this possibility.

At the same time, I want the players to have a better than even chance of being around their historical performance, so that the guys who dive really are huge gambles. When you trade some serious talent for a star and he bombs, the feeling is a mixture of disappointment mixed with satisfaction that nothing is a sure thing. The problem with recalc is that the bomb trajectory that Morgan was on would be steered back to historical accuracy. And that's the bummer. Generally, I have no issue with recalc off but it is just for the endurance issue. I suppose I can edit it for the big starters should I desire to do so, but that also leaves a hole in that what about the lesser pitchers? So it half-covers it, should I decide to go that route.

As to near-certain reproduction of careers, I can assure you that this isn't always the case. I just saw the Mick hack a .253/12/68 season in 582 ABs in '63!!! It was the inaugural season so generally the historic team. NY shelved him against LHP at the end of the year (AI team) and did he get pissed off! I was loving those stats, just for the historical variance. Again, I have player development @ 133, so that enables such a seasonal slide. But of course, in the next season his ratings are big again because recalc forgets the season just completed in ootp and uses historical data only. Oh well. But Mantle was by far an aberration of what the greats did that year. Most produced fairly well.

I don't see playing historical with possible variance as being completely non-fictional. Some guys think historical means replay. It does not in OOTP and there are shades of 'historical accuracy' that can be delivered. I seek a shadowed world of historicals here. And as in case of the Mick, scary things can exist in the shadows.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by BeachBum

If you are not using recalc and are not interested in obtaining results similar to real life, why are you playing a historical game rather than a fictional game?

If Sandy Koufax is not an awesome pitcher, his name might as well be Joe Smith. It is enjoyable to see what might happen in different scenarios such as Koufax pitching in Fenway or Aaron hitting in the Astrodome. This is especially true with the now available naturalized stats.

Again, if you do not want the players to perform somewhat as they did IRL, there is no reason to play historical.

I don't know if you aimed this at me or not. If you did then I do like for players to end up like they really were I especially want them to play the positions they played for most of their career. I want Hank Aaron to turn out to be Hank Aaron and not Hannk Schmo. But I also want the "possibilty" that he does end up being Hank Schmo. Recalc pretty much guarantees Aaron will be Aaron and I don't want guarantees. I have never and will never...ever...play a fictional league because names and people do matter to me. If you didn't aim this at me then...never mind.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by SittingDuck

Some good comments here, so I am glad I dragged this back out into the light of day. It will also be good for some of the total newbs around here.

Well, a few points. What I seek is a league where historical greats have a decent, but not absolute chance of reproducing their careers. A semi-historical run, if you will. I don't like or want historical replay. I like that with recalc off Carlton might be a toad. This is what makes the whole draft/trade thing great. I watched Morgan turn out to be horrible, and somehow I got a thrill out of that (maybe its the ESPN thing). I like this possibility.

At the same time, I want the players to have a better than even chance of being around their historical performance, so that the guys who dive really are huge gambles. When you trade some serious talent for a star and he bombs, the feeling is a mixture of disappointment mixed with satisfaction that nothing is a sure thing. The problem with recalc is that the bomb trajectory that Morgan was on would be steered back to historical accuracy. And that's the bummer. Generally, I have no issue with recalc off but it is just for the endurance issue. I suppose I can edit it for the big starters should I desire to do so, but that also leaves a hole in that what about the lesser pitchers? So it half-covers it, should I decide to go that route.

As to near-certain reproduction of careers, I can assure you that this isn't always the case. I just saw the Mick hack a .253/12/68 season in 582 ABs in '63!!! It was the inaugural season so generally the historic team. NY shelved him against LHP at the end of the year (AI team) and did he get pissed off! I was loving those stats, just for the historical variance. Again, I have player development @ 133, so that enables such a seasonal slide. But of course, in the next season his ratings are big again because recalc forgets the season just completed in ootp and uses historical data only. Oh well. But Mantle was by far an aberration of what the greats did that year. Most produced fairly well.

I don't see playing historical with possible variance as being completely non-fictional. Some guys think historical means replay. It does not in OOTP and there are shades of 'historical accuracy' that can be delivered. I seek a shadowed world of historicals here. And as in case of the Mick, scary things can exist in the shadows.

It's a homerun!
He hits the nail right on the head!
Bingo!
This is me to a T! This is what I want as well.

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by BeachBum

Again, if you do not want the players to perform somewhat as they did IRL, there is no reason to play historical.

Yes, there is.

I enjoy seeing Ted Williams hit at Fenway whether he's a .250 or a .250 hitter. Sure, I like it more when he hits .350 but having a familiarity with many pro players throughout history makes it fun to see what the names you know wind up doing. I like comparing them to how their real life counterparts did, too.

SittingDuck, edit anyone you want to play the proper positions or have proper endurance. That problem is solved and you still get the chance of them fluctuating. That is why I put the talent changer at 75. It lowers the chance they improve or get worse by 25%, but there is still that 75% chance the engine still does something.

[SittingDuck]

If you set it at 75, that is not a 75% chance, not on a 200pt scale.

[Le Grande Orange]

There's something to note in regards to trading in historical leagues: OOTP does not yet recreate the kind of interleague trading restrictions which used to exist in MLB up until 1986. As a result it's easier to engineer interleague trades in the game than was the case in real life.