Accidentally jump-started the live-ball era

[lnpgaceta]

So, when I migrated the Liga Nacional Puertorriqueña over to OOTP 22, I decided I was finally going to correct something that had bothered me for a while: the game only has weather data from the San Juan station in Puerto Rico, so every other ballpark in the league was using some sort of default temperature set (global averages?)

I went through and changed every ballpark to the San Juan data, since Puerto Rico has fairly consistent temperatures except for a few mountain towns, and even those are lately losing that distinctiveness due to climate change.

The results were, well . . . see for yourselves, I've packed in a couple graphs I mocked up.

Another way of looking at it: here's the number of players who hit 10+ HR in a season.

• 1880 (120 G): 0
• 1881 (120 G): 5
• 1882 (126 G): 4
• 1883 (126 G): 16 (¡!)
• 1884 (126 G): 6
• 1885 (126 G): 23 (¡¡!!)

Here's the thing: offense was actually down in 1885—the lowest it's ever been, with a league-wide batting average of .236 and a league-wide ERA of 2.74.

(Also, as anecdotal evidence, my beloved garbage Ingenieros de Rincón hit eight home runs between April and June, five in July—and fourteen in August, including multiple 2 HR games.

I should add that in August, a lot of teams—more than usual, I think—made some strange pitching decisions, and that likely helped, but I'm pretty sure the fact that ballpark temperatures increased some 20 degrees on average had a lot more to do with it!

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by lnpgaceta

I should add that in August, a lot of teams—more than usual, I think—made some strange pitching decisions, and that likely helped, but I'm pretty sure the fact that ballpark temperatures increased some 20 degrees on average had a lot more to do with it!

Well, maybe.

I don't know what effect temperature has on hitting, but I'd guess that it's minimal. A much bigger role would be played by your league settings. If you're using historical settings, then the power surge you experienced in 1885 should have been felt in 1884. In that year, the majors* saw 564 HRs, an almost 100% increase from the 238 hit in 1883. That's almost entirely due to a rule change in Chicago, where the White Stockings counted balls hit into the nearby left- and right-field stands as HRs instead of doubles, as had been the case in previous years. That situation resolved itself in the next year (the White Stockings moved to a different ballpark), and the two majors hit just 323 HRs in 1885. Still more than in 1883, but a lot less than the inflated number in 1884.

So if you're using the historical settings, then the power surge in 1885 is unexpected. - I'd need more information to solve that one If, on the other hand, you're using a moving average, then I can see how you'd get bigger HR numbers in 1885 than in 1884.


* OOTP only considers the NL and AA as major leagues for purposes of its historical modifiers for 1884. The UA is not part of that data set.

[lnpgaceta]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Well, maybe.

I don't know what effect temperature has on hitting, but I'd guess that it's minimal. A much bigger role would be played by your league settings. If you're using historical settings, then the power surge you experienced in 1885 should have been felt in 1884. In that year, the majors* saw 564 HRs, an almost 100% increase from the 238 hit in 1883. That's almost entirely due to a rule change in Chicago, where the White Stockings counted balls hit into the nearby left- and right-field stands as HRs instead of doubles, as had been the case in previous years. That situation resolved itself in the next year (the White Stockings moved to a different ballpark), and the two majors hit just 323 HRs in 1885. Still more than in 1883, but a lot less than the inflated number in 1884.

So if you're using the historical settings, then the power surge in 1885 is unexpected. - I'd need more information to solve that one If, on the other hand, you're using a moving average, then I can see how you'd get bigger HR numbers in 1885 than in 1884.


* OOTP only considers the NL and AA as major leagues for purposes of its historical modifiers for 1884. The UA is not part of that data set.

That's the thing! I do have historical settings set, and just checked: they're still set to 1885. (Your home run number provided the reference I needed—323 HR.)



Now, I don't think the temperature setting is the only factor. Some hitters developed during the season, maybe a few terrible pitching staff decisions here and there. But so many more 2-HR games happened, and so many more games where both teams combined for 4, 5, or 6 HR, that I figured there had to be something more sinister going on.



What made me think it might be the heat is that during the 2019 postseason, someone (Meredith Wills, possibly?) mentioned that the balls were no longer traveling as far as they should, even controlling for the colder weather, and I couldn't imagine OOTP leaving that out as a factor.


Is it possible that simply changing the version, by itself, would do it? I didn't run a simulation before I corrected the temperatures, unfortunately.

[lnpgaceta]

Sorry for the double post, but it occurred to me to check something else: average HR per team.

In 1885, by my count, there were 16 teams between the NL and AA. 323 / 16 is about 20 HR per team, on average.

This year, one league—Liga Hostos, which has been the pitching-heavier league for a few years—hit an average of 29 HR per team. That's been done before, but I think it's been more spread out.

Liga Betances hit 34 HR/team, which I am fairly certain is the highest mark that's happened.

More anecdata—the current record for postseason dingers is 3, which eight guys have managed. Only one did it before the first two rounds were over; of the other seven, three did it in a championship season.

In 1885, one guy did it before even finishing up the first round, another guy's done it by Game 3 of the second, and there's a bunch of players on teams likely to advance with two on their line. Obviously, postseason performance is much more fickle, but as that's what I'm currently going through, I figured I'd include it.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by lnpgaceta

That's the thing! I do have historical settings set, and just checked: they're still set to 1885. (Your home run number provided the reference I needed—323 HR.)

Well, that's a mystery. You should have encountered a HR surge in 1884 and a decline in 1885, not a significant increase in 1885. Thinking off the top of my head, that could be the result of:

• Player creation/development modifiers: maybe players created in 1883-84 (I'm assuming you're using fictional players) got big power numbers and kept them in 1885. I think that's unlikely, because that's not how the game works, but it's something to consider;
• Strategy settings: if you're using the historical settings, you should be seeing more bunts and hit-and-runs than HRs;
• Pitcher usage: you mention that the game makes some strange pitching moves. That's not surprising: the AI is inclined to use pitchers like it's 2021, even if it's the 1880s in your game. If you're seeing the game use a bunch of relievers in every game, that's non-historical. It might lead to more late-game HRs against crummy relievers;
• Warmer weather: hey, anything's possible;
• Statistical blip: these things happen. Your league might just be on the extreme end of the bell curve.

That's all I can think of. Without a deep dive into your game, I'm just guessing here. I'd be interested if anyone else has encountered something like this.

[lnpgaceta]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Well, that's a mystery. You should have encountered a HR surge in 1884 and a decline in 1885, not a significant increase in 1885. Thinking off the top of my head, that could be the result of:

• Player creation/development modifiers: maybe players created in 1883-84 (I'm assuming you're using fictional players) got big power numbers and kept them in 1885. I think that's unlikely, because that's not how the game works, but it's something to consider;
• Strategy settings: if you're using the historical settings, you should be seeing more bunts and hit-and-runs than HRs;
• Pitcher usage: you mention that the game makes some strange pitching moves. That's not surprising: the AI is inclined to use pitchers like it's 2021, even if it's the 1880s in your game. If you're seeing the game use a bunch of relievers in every game, that's non-historical. It might lead to more late-game HRs against crummy relievers;
• Warmer weather: hey, anything's possible;
• Statistical blip: these things happen. Your league might just be on the extreme end of the bell curve.

That's all I can think of. Without a deep dive into your game, I'm just guessing here. I'd be interested if anyone else has encountered something like this.

I would too! Sorry I took a while on this.


Anyway, I think it's a combination of all of the above factors.

• Player creation/development modifiers: The first wave of players that had both the raw power and eye tools, and the time and coaching to develop them properly, seem to have hit the LNP in the late 1870s. There were a few XBH sluggers before then, but they typically lived by legging out doubles and triples. Given that I've had a really hard time finding power-focused hitting coaches, I think that might have something to do with it.
• Strategy settings: I actually don't mess with batting strategies at all when I GM a team; I might lock a pitcher to a 100 count or ask my manager to give the bullpen more reps, but I like to let them make the baserunning/hitting decisions. (I think I've lowered a couple bunting sliders when the manager really likes them, but that's about it.)
• Pitcher usage: No argument here—a couple pitchers got off the IL at the end of the season with no rehab assignment, and a lot of teams that were either locked into or locked out of the playoffs like to try out pitching prospects in late August, when the games officially no longer matter. I suspect this is part of it, but I'd need a deeper dive into which teams did it.
• Warmer weather: I maintain this is a factor, partly because of the team I usually call games for (link in signature, pardon the shameless plug)—the Ingenieros have a bunch of one-dimensional power hitters and got 13 HR out of it in the three months before I moved over to 22; they had 14 HR in the remaining month, including two 2-HR games. Now, I don't think that the weather change would do it by itself—but combine it with the above factors, and I think some of these HRs used to be hard-hit balls that died on the warning track, since OOTP thinks it's possible to hit a ball 116.2 MPH in 1885.
• Statistical blip: Also entirely possible, which is why I'll have to revisit this in the next season. Liga Hostos, in particular, has actually had more home runs before, so it might turn out to be nothing.

I don't really mind either way, since it makes games a little more exciting when a mistake pitch can get properly punished, but we'll know more in a few weeks when the 1886 season wraps up.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by lnpgaceta

Player creation/development modifiers: The first wave of players that had both the raw power and eye tools, and the time and coaching to develop them properly, seem to have hit the LNP in the late 1870s. There were a few XBH sluggers before then, but they typically lived by legging out doubles and triples. Given that I've had a really hard time finding power-focused hitting coaches, I think that might have something to do with it.

As I understand it (and I encourage anyone to correct me if I'm wrong), OOTP starts with the stats and then distributes them to the players. That's why I call OOTP a "top-down" game (as opposed, say, to Strat-O-Matic, which is more "bottom-up"). So, if you're using the historical league totals for 1885, the game starts with 323 HRs. It then figures out how to distribute those 323 HRs throughout the league, considering all the player ratings and strategy settings and everything else. The result, if everything goes right, is that your league should end up with approximately 323 HRs.*

That's why I remarked that the player-creation modifiers probably didn't have any effect on the HR totals. Even if every player in your league had high power ratings, they'd still be fighting over those 323 HRs. A player in 2021 with an 80 (out of 80) power rating might hit over 50 HRs, but a guy in 1885 with an 80 rating will still only hit around 10-15. Adding power-focused coaches to the mix might nudge the HR totals a little higher, but it shouldn't have a big effect.

Originally Posted by lnpgaceta

Pitcher usage: No argument here—a couple pitchers got off the IL at the end of the season with no rehab assignment, and a lot of teams that were either locked into or locked out of the playoffs like to try out pitching prospects in late August, when the games officially no longer matter. I suspect this is part of it, but I'd need a deeper dive into which teams did it.

That sounds plausible. The default settings for pitchers are ... well, they're not historically optimal. OOTP's out-of-the-box settings are for three-man rotations and two-man bullpens. That's about two pitchers too many, as I see it. A team in those days would carry two or three pitchers, and all of them would be starters.

So OOTP's default roster settings cause the game to create way too many pitchers. I don't know how that affects the "top-down" distribution of pitcher stats, but my guess is that it generates a fair number of bad pitchers who are then relegated to the bullpen. Those relievers, in turn, get used far too frequently, which might lead to more HRs in the late innings.


* I'm assuming that you're using historical schedules and a 112-game season (I checked your links but couldn't determine how long your seasons are). Obviously, if you're playing 162 games in a season, your HR totals will be higher.

[LordTC]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

As I understand it (and I encourage anyone to correct me if I'm wrong), OOTP starts with the stats and then distributes them to the players. That's why I call OOTP a "top-down" game (as opposed, say, to Strat-O-Matic, which is more "bottom-up"). So, if you're using the historical league totals for 1885, the game starts with 323 HRs. It then figures out how to distribute those 323 HRs throughout the league, considering all the player ratings and strategy settings and everything else. The result, if everything goes right, is that your league should end up with approximately 323 HRs.*

That's why I remarked that the player-creation modifiers probably didn't have any effect on the HR totals. Even if every player in your league had high power ratings, they'd still be fighting over those 323 HRs. A player in 2021 with an 80 (out of 80) power rating might hit over 50 HRs, but a guy in 1885 with an 80 rating will still only hit around 10-15. Adding power-focused coaches to the mix might nudge the HR totals a little higher, but it shouldn't have a big effect.

In all fairness, 80 out of 80 in 1885 is going to be a very different number under the hood than 80 out of 80 in 1997. I'm not sure whether it's the 80 out of 80 or the raw number that matters. I'm guessing its not the raw numbers since that would make it harder to make things track statistically but I don't have evidence either way.

[lnpgaceta]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

As I understand it (and I encourage anyone to correct me if I'm wrong), OOTP starts with the stats and then distributes them to the players. That's why I call OOTP a "top-down" game (as opposed, say, to Strat-O-Matic, which is more "bottom-up"). So, if you're using the historical league totals for 1885, the game starts with 323 HRs. It then figures out how to distribute those 323 HRs throughout the league, considering all the player ratings and strategy settings and everything else. The result, if everything goes right, is that your league should end up with approximately 323 HRs.*

That's why I remarked that the player-creation modifiers probably didn't have any effect on the HR totals. Even if every player in your league had high power ratings, they'd still be fighting over those 323 HRs. A player in 2021 with an 80 (out of 80) power rating might hit over 50 HRs, but a guy in 1885 with an 80 rating will still only hit around 10-15. Adding power-focused coaches to the mix might nudge the HR totals a little higher, but it shouldn't have a big effect.

* I'm assuming that you're using historical schedules and a 112-game season (I checked your links but couldn't determine how long your seasons are). Obviously, if you're playing 162 games in a season, your HR totals will be higher.

I'm playing with 126 games, which (assuming linear progression) would move it up to ~363 HR. Those dingers, divided over 16 teams, is about 22 HR / team—still short of the 29 HR / team for the slightly less sluggish Hostos, let alone Betances' 34 HR / team.


Now, my leagues are 39 teams apiece, and 78 teams total—I was using HR/team to neutralize the impact of this somewhat, but 22 HR / team would get you a two-league total of about 1,716 HR, which, IIRC, falls about 600 HR short of the total I did get.

That sounds plausible. The default settings for pitchers are ... well, they're not historically optimal. OOTP's out-of-the-box settings are for three-man rotations and two-man bullpens. That's about two pitchers too many, as I see it. A team in those days would carry two or three pitchers, and all of them would be starters.

So OOTP's default roster settings cause the game to create way too many pitchers. I don't know how that affects the "top-down" distribution of pitcher stats, but my guess is that it generates a fair number of bad pitchers who are then relegated to the bullpen. Those relievers, in turn, get used far too frequently, which might lead to more HRs in the late innings.

The first part of your second paragraph is definitely true—in fact, I'll go even farther; a lot of those bad pitchers still get shoved out there as starters. (To be fair, some of them are long relievers who only have 2-2.5 pitches; it's very funny to watch a guy win playoff MVP awards and come close to leading the league in various stats while being officially rated a "Borderline SP" because of his limited mix.)


The second, without a deeper dive, I don't think I could verify. I know some of those HRs came off injury replacements, and others were from guys who were sitting on the bench all year and got called up when their team hit the magic or tragic number, and probably still others are the exact situation you're describing.

[LordTC]

Originally Posted by lnpgaceta

The first part of your second paragraph is definitely true—in fact, I'll go even farther; a lot of those bad pitchers still get shoved out there as starters. (To be fair, some of them are long relievers who only have 2-2.5 pitches; it's very funny to watch a guy win playoff MVP awards and come close to leading the league in various stats while being officially rated a "Borderline SP" because of his limited mix.)

I'm not sure if 1885 is still like 1871 where all the quality starters have 255 movement (max on the scale), but if it is then having relievers and marginal starters may be making the difference. A lot of the relievers in 1871 have less than half the movement value. If you're getting a lot of 2x movement disparities it's not really a surprise that you're seeing a substantial boost in HR. Still a bit strange that it wasn't stable season to season. Did 1885 have an unusual number of pitcher injuries in your sim?

As for people being listed as borderline starter, I'd mostly ignore it in the 1800's. Stuff is terribly low for the whole league and movement and control are a lot more important. If you have good movement and good control I think it's worth it to get 0-2 strikeouts a game instead of 2-4. The borderline starter rating is a result of not having enough high rated pitches, which just has an implication of low stuff.

[lnpgaceta]

Originally Posted by LordTC

I'm not sure if 1885 is still like 1871 where all the quality starters have 255 movement (max on the scale), but if it is then having relievers and marginal starters may be making the difference. A lot of the relievers in 1871 have less than half the movement value. If you're getting a lot of 2x movement disparities it's not really a surprise that you're seeing a substantial boost in HR. Still a bit strange that it wasn't stable season to season. Did 1885 have an unusual number of pitcher injuries in your sim?

As for people being listed as borderline starter, I'd mostly ignore it in the 1800's. Stuff is terribly low for the whole league and movement and control are a lot more important. If you have good movement and good control I think it's worth it to get 0-2 strikeouts a game instead of 2-4. The borderline starter rating is a result of not having enough high rated pitches, which just has an implication of low stuff.

For some reason I failed to notice your first post, so I'll combine the responses here: the raw number seems to be what matters more, based on the editing I've done for some players. (I use 1-100; I gave a beloved player a little bit of a power boost for his last season and by the time I got him to 12 HR in the modern era he was rated around 95 for HR power.) I did not, unfortunately, check on a lot of pitchers around the beginning of the league, but from what I remember, it was control that was the big number for a lot of them early on. Maybe because they're fictional players, or I could've tripped a setting somewhere; I definitely didn't do that intentionally.


Either way, this year didn't have a ton of pitcher injuries, but some of them were to quality starters, which probably contributed to that total . . . except that most of those injured were back by August. (They didn't get to rehab, but you'd still think they'd be better than some random 22-year-old you've been keeping on the bench.)


And as for the borderliners, yeah, it's one of the funniest things about the current state of the league; Raúl Ramírez the national championship MVP last year (went 3-0, 0.00 ERA or something ridiculous like that) has had an ERA under 2.00 for the last three seasons, leads the league in WHIP every other year, and the game is still calling him "borderline" because he's got two actual pitches plus a fringer.


It's actually kind of useful in a way, because seeing that on someone's page makes me look harder at what his other numbers are, and very often it's obvious the dude would make a serviceable starter.

[lnpgaceta]

Just wanted to update: I'm pretty sure this hypothesis is dead.

The 1886 season has gotten off to what looks like a pretty normal start, dinger-wise. April saw more 10-HR days, but fewer days with 20+ (as well as fewer days with under 10); May, with only a couple days left, has produced one more 20+ HR day but also a lot more days with under 10 HR.

Obviously this is due to a lot of different factors, but the fatal wounds are that the 1886 modifiers include 413 HR, as opposed to 323, with the same number of teams . . . and that during spring training, when the temperature in the weird void ballpark was around the 40s for a lot of the games, there were multiple games with six homers. I'm sure part of that was teams testing bad bullpen arms and so on, but I managed during most of them, and those games gave me a very different vibe from the regular season.

Figured I should at least 'fess up!