Effects of recalc... will it work for me?

[Brad K]

My impression of recalc was it was an on or off thing, either you locked the game into recalc or into career development. Then I saw some posts about running it every three years of so. I've always played on career development.

I considered recalc as letting me know what was coming with while not 100% certainly at least in a general range and I don't want that. OTOH, with career development - and this is anecdotal and may be more evident because they are stars - I find star players with long productive careers seldom do that with career development set.

But yet another OTOH, some very short career players have been productive for ten years or more. Again, anecdotal, it seems career development lets shot career players do well longer but caps everyone at not doing well after age 32 or so.

Now maybe these anecdotal impressions are wrong, but assuming they're somewhere close to right, how would me using recalc every few years affect the situation?

1. It seems it would make it more likely that a player with a long productive career will have one in the game. But I don't want a guarantee. I just want a situation where it happens much of the time instead of (non statistical evaluation) never.

2. What happens to players who had productive careers cut short in five years due to injury? I kind of like career development because it often lets guys like this play ten years of so.

What I'd like is a situation where guys who had their best years when they were "old" have a chance to do that but at the same time not hold short career guys who lost out due to severe injury to always stop producing even absent injury in the game.

Maybe its impossible....

[NoOne]

you have various options that control how their potentials / current ability are set and whether or not to recalc often or let the game engine determine how they evolve over time... check manual, only a few things you can do to affect these thigns, but the combinations between them is well varied.

whatever combination suits your needs... some things you mention may be in conflict with each other and you'll have to choose one or the other or some sort of compromise. the manual will give you teh best info for your choices.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Brad K

My impression of recalc was it was an on or off thing, either you locked the game into recalc or into career development. Then I saw some posts about running it every three years of so. I've always played on career development.

I considered recalc as letting me know what was coming with while not 100% certainly at least in a general range and I don't want that. OTOH, with career development - and this is anecdotal and may be more evident because they are stars - I find star players with long productive careers seldom do that with career development set.

But yet another OTOH, some very short career players have been productive for ten years or more. Again, anecdotal, it seems career development lets shot career players do well longer but caps everyone at not doing well after age 32 or so.

Now maybe these anecdotal impressions are wrong, but assuming they're somewhere close to right, how would me using recalc every few years affect the situation?

1. It seems it would make it more likely that a player with a long productive career will have one in the game. But I don't want a guarantee. I just want a situation where it happens much of the time instead of (non statistical evaluation) never.

2. What happens to players who had productive careers cut short in five years due to injury? I kind of like career development because it often lets guys like this play ten years of so.

What I'd like is a situation where guys who had their best years when they were "old" have a chance to do that but at the same time not hold short career guys who lost out due to severe injury to always stop producing even absent injury in the game.

Maybe its impossible....

You could try recalc with player development on. I use 3-year double weighted recalc (though I'm tempted to use 5-year double weighted recalc following an exchange I had with Garlon). I use the default settings for player development. I would imagine making it three or five years would make a player's career progression less predictable for you, but not 100% sure on that. With this setting, Ken Griffey Jr. was actually outplayed by his pops in my random debut league, and Jim Palmer was nowhere near the RL Jim Palmer. Most guys play out as you'd expect, but you do get some surprises.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by NoOne

some things you mention may be in conflict with each other and you'll have to choose one or the other or some sort of compromise. the manual will give you teh best info for your choices.

I kind of suspected the goals were conflicting.

What I'm guessing is using recalc I'd still get some long time players knocked out by injuries in the game and wouldn't have the compensation of having historical short term players perform longer/better.

Which I see the match historical totals function as being compensation for individual player ratings not averaging out.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

You could try recalc with player development on. I use 3-year double weighted recalc (though I'm tempted to use 5-year double weighted recalc following an exchange I had with Garlon). I use the default settings for player development. I would imagine making it three or five years would make a player's career progression less predictable for you, but not 100% sure on that. With this setting, Ken Griffey Jr. was actually outplayed by his pops in my random debut league, and Jim Palmer was nowhere near the RL Jim Palmer. Most guys play out as you'd expect, but you do get some surprises.

What I'd really like is the guys who were good after age 30 and especially those who had their best years after age 30 to have a shot at that.

I think I'm going to try your method or some variation of it and accept that it probably kills those 3 good years and out guys from having 6-7 decent years on occasion.

So do I understand you're running recalc every three years? If so, what time of year do you do it? Or do you randomize when during the year it happens?

That might provide some interesting situations... make recalc a possibility but a low probability starting sometime during the second year since the last one and giving in increasing probability as time goes on until there's deadline and its done.

[Brad K]

There's another thread about talent randomness, setting it lower, like 75. Any thoughts on how that affects this situation?

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What I'd really like is the guys who were good after age 30 and especially those who had their best years after age 30 to have a shot at that.

I think I'm going to try your method or some variation of it and accept that it probably kills those 3 good years and out guys from having 6-7 decent years on occasion.

So do I understand you're running recalc every three years? If so, what time of year do you do it? Or do you randomize when during the year it happens?

That might provide some interesting situations... make recalc a possibility but a low probability starting sometime during the second year since the last one and giving in increasing probability as time goes on until there's deadline and its done.

3-year recalc is not what you seem to think it is. Let's say the player in question is coming up on his 1985 season stats from RL. 3-year recalc would use his 1984, 1985, and 1986 weighted evenly (33.33% each year) to get ratings. In 1986, it would be 1985, 1986, and 1987 weighted evenly. 3-year recalc double weighted for the current year would take 25% from 1984, 50% from 1985, and 25% from 1986 for a player's 1985 season. 5-year recalc would be 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 weighted evenly (20% each year) for a player's 1985 season. 5-year recalc double weighted for the current year would take one-sixth from 1983, one-sixth from 1984, one-third from 1985, one-sixth from 1986, and one-sixth from 1987 and derive ratings accordingly. It basically smooths out the rough edges of variability that come with 1-year recalc. 5-year recalc is also very useful for dealing with the players who were interrupted for military service, or other long periods of time away from the game.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Brad K

There's another thread about talent randomness, setting it lower, like 75. Any thoughts on how that affects this situation?

Not too sure on this, as I only ever use the default settings. I figure with recalc there's no need for me to fiddle with this stuff. I fiddle around with enough things in the game. It's nice to let my OCD tendencies take a break.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

3-year recalc is not what you seem to think it is. Let's say the player in question is coming up on his 1985 season stats from RL. 3-year recalc would use his 1984, 1985, and 1986 weighted evenly (33.33% each year) to get ratings. In 1986, it would be 1985, 1986, and 1987 weighted evenly. 3-year recalc double weighted for the current year would take 25% from 1984, 50% from 1985, and 25% from 1986 for a player's 1985 season. 5-year recalc would be 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987 weighted evenly (20% each year) for a player's 1985 season. 5-year recalc double weighted for the current year would take one-sixth from 1983, one-sixth from 1984, one-third from 1985, one-sixth from 1986, and one-sixth from 1987 and derive ratings accordingly. It basically smooths out the rough edges of variability that come with 1-year recalc. 5-year recalc is also very useful for dealing with the players who were interrupted for military service, or other long periods of time away from the game.

I think I got ahead of myself and didn't explain well.

Play a season or two or three on career development then run it in recalc for a season. And maybe not turn on recalc on a schedule. Have an external system to randomize when its used.

[NoOne]

a low TCR will avoid non-historical changes to ratings... i think that's what you want?

fwiw, i use "20" TCR nowadays with lower scouting accuracy. i like that combo. still surprises in round 10-13ish, but due to scouting error, not future random luck... something about that order of logic seems more rational to me. i may dump it down to "0" for a test run in '19. what i'd be worried about "0" is whether peak ratings require some amount of TCR to occur normally (rate and amplitude). even though i am not a fan of the logic behind it, it may be integral to how ootp works, and if so i'll just suck it up. can't have it all.

for historical play, a "0" probably isn't far off from what many setups would compliment. unless you want it all free willy after player creation, of course. then, TCR is intended to take effect.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I think I got ahead of myself and didn't explain well.

Play a season or two or three on career development then run it in recalc for a season. And maybe not turn on recalc on a schedule. Have an external system to randomize when its used.

I've never tried this, so I have no idea how it would work. It's always awesome to see people come up with new and interesting ways to play this game though.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I've never tried this, so I have no idea how it would work. It's always awesome to see people come up with new and interesting ways to play this game though.

Thank you.

I rejected recalc when I first got the game because of too much information. But I really got tired of every star collapsing after age 30. This seems like a possible solution.

I'm going to try it in my next game. Will probably randomize recalc, 10% chance year one, 50% year two (back to 10% if it hits), 90% year three, and if its all misses, do it year four.

[Brad K]

This is preliminary as I am now in only the seventh year of this game. I started with the game set to Career Development and then did the rollls as described previously and have gotten two recalcs.

There has been a big effect on the Fielding ratings of some players when recalcs is done. One player who came up as a first baseman but played a lot of Outfield after a couple years suddenly got good outfielder readings. On Career Development I have never been able to get any outfield rating on this player. Another multi position player had his left and right field ratings reduced from 30-ish to one.

It seems some randomization still occurs. I have two players he should be 3 star MLB players now who are still in AAA with one star.

The change in ratings at different fielding positions is a bit disconcerting and some of the Rises and drops are implausible. But other than that I like what is happening.