Would like to see this in the future

majormet · 04-02-2002, 05:20 PM

I finally got to buy OOTP4 and am setting up my fictional league and I am running my 1962 league still in OOTP3. ONe feature that would be highly compelling and not sure if it was ever disucussed would be adjustment factors for surprise seasons.

I will use current players to make my poinit

Example #1 - Marcus Jensen - This is an awful player that would have a rating line around 3 for every category. For whatever reason, let's say that Jensen wins the job for a really bad team and goes on to hit 25 HR and drive in 95 runs and bat .285. I would love to see an adjustment in the ratings based on this fluke season.

Example #2 - Ron Villone - Crummy pitcher.. let's say that his ratings are around 4-5, he goes 17-9 with a 3.85 ERA, I would love to see him climb to the 6's or 7's based on the flukeness.

I don't think this feature exists but it would add a further realism to a great game.

Draft Dodger · 04-02-2002, 05:26 PM

in real life, if someone has a fluke season like that, chances are they are going to return right back to their original level.

so, ratings shouldn't change drastically just from one good season.

majormet · 04-02-2002, 05:29 PM

Draft Dodger, I would beg to disagree there are too many players that had fluke years over time that made careers for themselves. I would say that a 4 should not jump to an 8 but maybe a 6.

Here are guys that come to mind that became something out of nowhere and kept it up

1) Rick Reed
2) Jay Johnstone
3) Rick Dempsey
4) Al Martin
5) Jermaine Dye (consider the decline)
6) Matt Stairs
7) Danny Heep

I could probably list about 100 guys if given a chance, that had a career year out of nowhere and still managed to play above their expectation for a number of years.

majormet · 04-02-2002, 09:14 PM

In thinking further about this, I really see a possible new spin for OOTP5, I really feel that the game could use a re-rate based on the past season, so that a player improves or worsens by a algorithm of their past season, current season and future. This would do the following:

1) Create the realism of a controversy, if Mo Vaughn blows out his knee this year for the Mets and Mark Johnson puts up Carlos Delgado type numbers, his ratings should go up a bit based on the algorith.

2) Creates the realism of trade value, if a Mark Johnson rated a 4 puts up big numbers, his ratings should go up so that his trade value improves.

I think the key thing in this feature would be to make the game more complex for solitaire players and creates more moving targets, and would get some uniqueness to the game.

If a player is 41 and his numbers are dropping yet he puts up big numbers despite the ratings drop he could get a re-rating push and make it to 43 or 44, would like to see a player or 2 here or there make it to 44.

This would be added features to an already great product. FHL the hockey sim does have a re-rate which is based on the season.

The game should take into account that a scrub that finally gets a chance to play could improve once at the big league level, conversely if he goes 3 for 41 he may find his way out the game sooner.

Kelric · 04-03-2002, 08:35 AM

Don't forget the all time where the hell did he come from guy:

Bret Boone.

Scott Vibert · 04-03-2002, 08:43 AM

[quote]Originally posted by majormet:
I finally got to buy OOTP4 and am setting up my fictional league and I am running my 1962 league still in OOTP3. ONe feature that would be highly compelling and not sure if it was ever disucussed would be adjustment factors for surprise seasons.
<hr></blockquote>

Ratings do change over the course of the season.

But realistically if a scout watches a player and sees him as a 3, should that scouts impression based on when he saw the player just because he hits very well? The scout perhaps should be fired, but maybe perhaps it is a fluke season and the scout was on the money so he sticks to his assessment.

I know I'd be really annoyed to be looking for a free agent and signing someone I think is rated a 6 only to find out that his ratings were fluke inflated and see him become a 3 by the end of April. The ratings need to be somewhat consistent and shouldn't be bouncing all over the place because of a hot streak or a fluke season, otherwise it becomes frustrating trying to sort out who is who.

What you want might be better simulated for you if you had the no ratings option on (talents only) then you have to judge the player solely based on the stats.

Your argument that it would help the players trade value is valid, but perhaps this can be addressed by having the AI put some emphasis on the stats in their trade evaluations, rather than changing the entire ratings system.

That's my opinion.

fluharty · 04-03-2002, 08:54 AM

Another name that deserves mentioning: Luis Gonzalez
Look at his 91-98 stats, then look at his 99-01 stats. An example of a solid player suddenly becomming a super-star at 32-33 years old.

Civ2boss · 04-03-2002, 08:59 AM

Well if you think about it if these players have a fluke season and kept it up, it couldn't be a fluke now would it? Take Jamie Moyer for example since '96 he has been Pedro like! His record was 92-41 and Perdo was 97-38 , I mean everyone says he's a fluke yet he kept on winning like a Randy, or a Glavine.

majormet · 04-03-2002, 01:19 PM

Moyer and Luis Gonzalez are great examples of guys that probably would have had low ratings and put up a stunning season and have gone on to greatness.

I guess I am looking to see if there is a way to draft a guy in the 8th round and have him stink and then your 2nd baseman goes down and you can't sign a 2nd baseman and you give this 3 rated player a chance and he hits .285 over 300 at bats, I would think that the MLB experience improved the player from a 3 to a 5.

Scott, I would think the rating evaluator would only change certain players so that realism sets in but not dramatically, we are not saying hmm Olmedo Saenz has 35 HR and 110 RBI's with a 310 avg, lets improve his Avg from 4 to 8 and HR from 5 to 8. More like 4 to 5 and 5 to 6, so that you have a controversy if Carlos Pena would be injured and now you have 2 first baseman and trade bait.

I just would like to see some mobility in ratings to account for players that beat the odds. I mean a 4 rated player bats .295 for 300 at bats in 2003, he jumps to a 5 in 2004, but bats .243 since a 5 would normally bat around that are, meanwhile he has trade value and will ask for money based on his ratings increase of a slight nature.

But if you follow this re-rate factor you may have that occasional player last until he is 45 years old, or that Craig Counsell type of player that comes through out of nowhere.

I just feel that the wish list for OOTP5 would be well covered with some player re-rate when proceeding to the next year.

Wish List item often cited here include:

a) Having a Jesse Orosco or Charlie Hough type pitch into their mid 40's, I would say 1 out of 1200 players would last this long, but with a re-rate, a 42 year old pitcher that is still under 4.00 ERA should go on to the next season.

Also under this wish list item, a few players may make it into the hall of fame.

b) Injuries, lack of playing time and other factors that can weaken a player should be accounted for. Robin Ventura blew out his shoulder and became a horrid player in his early 30's, his ratings should decline somewhat or a player like him for his injury.

Re-rate should factor

a) last year's stats/career, and ratings and adjust by 1/30th of the deviation. A player could jump from a 4 to a 7 in 3 years, if they have 3 fluke seasons in a row. Jamie Moyer would fit this pattern, but in OOTP4 he is nearing 40 so he probably gets horrible each year rather than better.

I love the game, and just am trying to add something to the game to get closer to realsim, but also a moving target beyond one's control is great for the challenge of the game.

Scott Vibert · 04-03-2002, 01:32 PM

Isn't it ironic that we have one thread complaining about the ratings moving and another one complaining that they don't move?

<a href="http://www.ootpbb.com/board/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001667" target="_blank">http://www.ootpbb.com/board/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001667</a>

My point is the ratings already change, and the players ratings don't necessarily influence their retirement... how much they play and how long they are signed seems to. I have a 38 year old pitcher rated 8's and 7's who emailed me to let me know he's hanging it up...

The fact is we don't know the players actual ratings the values you see are always just your scouts impression, and the ratings do change, and sometimes your scouts impression will already change, I just don't think we need to use the stats to revise the ratings, as the stats are already derived from the ratings, you'd get a circular (and infinte) loop of changes if you do it in this fashion.

Of course that's my opinion and I could be wrong.

majormet · 04-03-2002, 01:52 PM

Scott, perhaps.

I guess I am playing my 1962 league into 1979 and I move at a clip of a season every 3-4 weeks. I have had players come up and have fluke seasons and there is never that dimension where they continue to produce at some level better than their original ratings.

What is the oldest player you have ever had as well, I had Hank Foiles make it to 42 years old, and it seems catchers last longer.

Draft Dodger · 04-03-2002, 04:31 PM

[quote]Originally posted by majormet:
Here are guys that come to mind that became something out of nowhere and kept it up

1) Rick Reed
2) Jay Johnstone
3) Rick Dempsey
4) Al Martin
5) Jermaine Dye (consider the decline)
6) Matt Stairs
7) Danny Heep

<hr></blockquote>

Perhaps you should take a look at their career stats again. I can't see making a case for anyone of those 7 for having a breakout season out of nowhere that was then sustained.

Stairs hit .294 in his first season over 500 AB. since then? .258, .227, .250.

Johnstone had a bust out season in 98. 2 season later? 6.30 ERA. Reed had his breakout year in 97, and his performance has declined steadily since then (he's the closest I'd come to saying he had one fluke year that was sustained).

Martin and Dempsey were/are moderately consistent from season to season. I can't find an example of 1 season shining out as a fluke breakout.

Danny Heep hit .300 in 89 and .174 the following year.

Even though these were bad examples, there ARE players who had a big breakout season and then kept it up. Shawn Green comes to mind here. Jeremy Burnitz as well. But, often, like Dye, these were highly touted players who were finally reaching their potential, not flukes who keep it up.

Look at Kevin Elster - 36 HR's in parts of 9 season with a career best average of .241. So, at the age of 32, what does he do? 24 HRs, .252. The following season? .225, 7 homers.

Brook Jacoby - out of nowhere hits 32 hrs in 87. Next season? 9, and never again reaches even 15.
I could keep going on.

So, I guess I stand by my original statement - a guy who has a bustout year, especially someone who does so unexpectedly, is not guaranteed to do the same the following year. Often times, that bustout season becomes that player's BEST year - he may never reach those levels again.

I think the way OOTP handles the ratings is accurate - it allows for player to have steady careers as expected from their ratings, but also has enough deviation to allow for some bustouts that flame quickly and return back to earth before too long.

majormet · 04-03-2002, 04:37 PM

Draft Dodger, good points.

Rick Reed, Jamie Moyer and others are guys with no hype that kicked around 5-7 years and then had a breakout season and ended up having great careers, they are few.

The Johnstone I was talking of was Jay, who was a pinch hitter for the White Sox and had a nothing career even took a tour of the minors before resurrecting in Philly when Bake McBride got hurt and then had 10 great seasons thereafter.

I guess maybe not to affect the ratings but the trade value. I mean many of the players you mentioned that had one bust out year suddenly had trade value. If for some dumb reason Mark Smith is rated a 3-4, and drills 33 homers this year, he would have huge trade value, but in OOTP you could not get a red cent for him, but in real life if Smith put up these numbers at least 9 or 10 teams would overpay for him in the pennant race.

Draft Dodger · 04-03-2002, 04:56 PM

maybe I missed your intent -

did you mean to say that someone having a fluke season should have his ratings bump dramatically DURING his fluke season (and then, presumably, return to normal)?
or did you mean that his ratings should bump AFTER the season and then stay at that high level.

majormet · 04-03-2002, 05:03 PM

Draft Dodger - I am thinking of let's say taking a player that is not a prospect, for argument sake I will take in my opinion one of the worst players of all time Catcher Joe Nolan - The besspectacled catcher for the Braves and Reds.

He was never a prospect and his ratings are in the 4 range, in my 1962 league now in 1979, the Mets have acquired his services and he is batting .285 with 7 homers and 35 RBI's nearly midway through the season with 4 type ratings.

The Mets have Joe Torre recovering from injury and 38 years old and Bruce Eggs Benedict in AAA, so Nolan may not be needed next year. Let's say Nolan bats .279 and hits 12 homers and drives in 65 runs for 1979 standards. His ratings should go up to 5-5 or something like that based on a matrix whereby it tskes into account years of service, career stats versus the fluke year.

Mainly, because Nolan should be a bit better as a player now having tasted some success and also because on the trade market he would have more value than his ratings.

Now Nolan gets recomputed for 1980 and he is a 5-5, doesn't mean he will put up big numbers, he could easily drop to 3 HR, 33 RBI and .225 AVG, but at least he has improved somewhat.

Even Brook Jacoby never returned to his horrible status, an injury did that player in.

John Vanderwal will never put up the big numbers again but he will be better than he was before he tasted success.

Civ2boss · 04-03-2002, 05:23 PM

Another fluke that doesn't keep it up is Fernando Tatis, he had two lucky homeruns in that fluke seasons to become history, but since has done absolutly nothing.

You could say that some players have a career year but they were just lucky for that year where everything was perfect.

Then there are players like John Burkett, or Aramis Ramirez, that worked on hitting or just didn't get enough playing time.

Then there are players like Pokey Reese or Jamie Moyer that were just great players we didn't know.

Tree · 04-03-2002, 06:54 PM

"Then there are players like Pokey Reese or Jamie Moyer that were just great players we didn't know."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

Civ2boss · 04-03-2002, 06:59 PM

Hey try explaining Jamie Moyer's dominance, if that's not greatness that Pedro is not a great pitcher. And Pokey Reese was much better than anyone first thought.

[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: Civ2boss ]

Draft Dodger · 04-03-2002, 07:22 PM

actually, I'd argue that Pokey Reese hasn't become as good as people thought he would be.

Tree · 04-03-2002, 07:32 PM

You called Pokey Reese "great." I mean, that's FUNNY.

His best season, he was .285/.330/.417. His career numbers are .250/.308/.363.

I wonder which cap he'll wear into the Hall of Fame?

04-03-2002, 08:43 AM	#6
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,209	[quote]Originally posted by majormet: <strong>I finally got to buy OOTP4 and am setting up my fictional league and I am running my 1962 league still in OOTP3. ONe feature that would be highly compelling and not sure if it was ever disucussed would be adjustment factors for surprise seasons. </strong><hr></blockquote> Ratings do change over the course of the season. But realistically if a scout watches a player and sees him as a 3, should that scouts impression based on when he saw the player just because he hits very well? The scout perhaps should be fired, but maybe perhaps it is a fluke season and the scout was on the money so he sticks to his assessment. I know I'd be really annoyed to be looking for a free agent and signing someone I think is rated a 6 only to find out that his ratings were fluke inflated and see him become a 3 by the end of April. The ratings need to be somewhat consistent and shouldn't be bouncing all over the place because of a hot streak or a fluke season, otherwise it becomes frustrating trying to sort out who is who. What you want might be better simulated for you if you had the no ratings option on (talents only) then you have to judge the player solely based on the stats. Your argument that it would help the players trade value is valid, but perhaps this can be addressed by having the AI put some emphasis on the stats in their trade evaluations, rather than changing the entire ratings system. That's my opinion.

04-03-2002, 04:31 PM	#12
Draft Dodger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: formerly of the OTBL Posts: 4,113	[quote]Originally posted by majormet: <strong>Here are guys that come to mind that became something out of nowhere and kept it up 1) Rick Reed 2) Jay Johnstone 3) Rick Dempsey 4) Al Martin 5) Jermaine Dye (consider the decline) 6) Matt Stairs 7) Danny Heep </strong><hr></blockquote> Perhaps you should take a look at their career stats again. I can't see making a case for anyone of those 7 for having a breakout season out of nowhere that was then sustained. Stairs hit .294 in his first season over 500 AB. since then? .258, .227, .250. Johnstone had a bust out season in 98. 2 season later? 6.30 ERA. Reed had his breakout year in 97, and his performance has declined steadily since then (he's the closest I'd come to saying he had one fluke year that was sustained). Martin and Dempsey were/are moderately consistent from season to season. I can't find an example of 1 season shining out as a fluke breakout. Danny Heep hit .300 in 89 and .174 the following year. Even though these were bad examples, there ARE players who had a big breakout season and then kept it up. Shawn Green comes to mind here. Jeremy Burnitz as well. But, often, like Dye, these were highly touted players who were finally reaching their potential, not flukes who keep it up. Look at Kevin Elster - 36 HR's in parts of 9 season with a career best average of .241. So, at the age of 32, what does he do? 24 HRs, .252. The following season? .225, 7 homers. Brook Jacoby - out of nowhere hits 32 hrs in 87. Next season? 9, and never again reaches even 15. I could keep going on. So, I guess I stand by my original statement - a guy who has a bustout year, especially someone who does so unexpectedly, is not guaranteed to do the same the following year. Often times, that bustout season becomes that player's BEST year - he may never reach those levels again. I think the way OOTP handles the ratings is accurate - it allows for player to have steady careers as expected from their ratings, but also has enough deviation to allow for some bustouts that flame quickly and return back to earth before too long. __________________ Draft Dodger (Anarchy: Anything goes. The Draft Dodger viewpoint.) Sophmoric[sic] Member of the OOTP Boards (It's not OOTP; it's your computer) 15 GB Webhosting for $6.95 a month IMO we are best off abandoning that sinking ship that is Off Topic to the rats infesting it and just starting a whole new Baseball Forum from scratch.

04-03-2002, 04:56 PM	#14
Draft Dodger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: formerly of the OTBL Posts: 4,113	maybe I missed your intent - did you mean to say that someone having a fluke season should have his ratings bump dramatically DURING his fluke season (and then, presumably, return to normal)? or did you mean that his ratings should bump AFTER the season and then stay at that high level. __________________ Draft Dodger (Anarchy: Anything goes. The Draft Dodger viewpoint.) Sophmoric[sic] Member of the OOTP Boards (It's not OOTP; it's your computer) 15 GB Webhosting for $6.95 a month IMO we are best off abandoning that sinking ship that is Off Topic to the rats infesting it and just starting a whole new Baseball Forum from scratch.

04-03-2002, 06:59 PM	#18
Civ2boss Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 39	Hey try explaining Jamie Moyer's dominance, if that's not greatness that Pedro is not a great pitcher. And Pokey Reese was much better than anyone first thought. [ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: Civ2boss ]</p>

04-03-2002, 07:22 PM	#19
Draft Dodger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: formerly of the OTBL Posts: 4,113	actually, I'd argue that Pokey Reese hasn't become as good as people thought he would be. __________________ Draft Dodger (Anarchy: Anything goes. The Draft Dodger viewpoint.) Sophmoric[sic] Member of the OOTP Boards (It's not OOTP; it's your computer) 15 GB Webhosting for $6.95 a month IMO we are best off abandoning that sinking ship that is Off Topic to the rats infesting it and just starting a whole new Baseball Forum from scratch.

04-02-2002, 05:20 PM	#1
majormet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,536	Would like to see this in the future I finally got to buy OOTP4 and am setting up my fictional league and I am running my 1962 league still in OOTP3. ONe feature that would be highly compelling and not sure if it was ever disucussed would be adjustment factors for surprise seasons. I will use current players to make my poinit Example #1 - Marcus Jensen - This is an awful player that would have a rating line around 3 for every category. For whatever reason, let's say that Jensen wins the job for a really bad team and goes on to hit 25 HR and drive in 95 runs and bat .285. I would love to see an adjustment in the ratings based on this fluke season. Example #2 - Ron Villone - Crummy pitcher.. let's say that his ratings are around 4-5, he goes 17-9 with a 3.85 ERA, I would love to see him climb to the 6's or 7's based on the flukeness. I don't think this feature exists but it would add a further realism to a great game.

04-02-2002, 05:26 PM	#2
Draft Dodger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: formerly of the OTBL Posts: 4,113	in real life, if someone has a fluke season like that, chances are they are going to return right back to their original level. so, ratings shouldn't change drastically just from one good season. __________________ Draft Dodger (Anarchy: Anything goes. The Draft Dodger viewpoint.) Sophmoric[sic] Member of the OOTP Boards (It's not OOTP; it's your computer) 15 GB Webhosting for $6.95 a month IMO we are best off abandoning that sinking ship that is Off Topic to the rats infesting it and just starting a whole new Baseball Forum from scratch.

04-02-2002, 05:29 PM	#3
majormet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,536	Draft Dodger, I would beg to disagree there are too many players that had fluke years over time that made careers for themselves. I would say that a 4 should not jump to an 8 but maybe a 6. Here are guys that come to mind that became something out of nowhere and kept it up 1) Rick Reed 2) Jay Johnstone 3) Rick Dempsey 4) Al Martin 5) Jermaine Dye (consider the decline) 6) Matt Stairs 7) Danny Heep I could probably list about 100 guys if given a chance, that had a career year out of nowhere and still managed to play above their expectation for a number of years.

04-02-2002, 09:14 PM	#4
majormet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,536	In thinking further about this, I really see a possible new spin for OOTP5, I really feel that the game could use a re-rate based on the past season, so that a player improves or worsens by a algorithm of their past season, current season and future. This would do the following: 1) Create the realism of a controversy, if Mo Vaughn blows out his knee this year for the Mets and Mark Johnson puts up Carlos Delgado type numbers, his ratings should go up a bit based on the algorith. 2) Creates the realism of trade value, if a Mark Johnson rated a 4 puts up big numbers, his ratings should go up so that his trade value improves. I think the key thing in this feature would be to make the game more complex for solitaire players and creates more moving targets, and would get some uniqueness to the game. If a player is 41 and his numbers are dropping yet he puts up big numbers despite the ratings drop he could get a re-rating push and make it to 43 or 44, would like to see a player or 2 here or there make it to 44. This would be added features to an already great product. FHL the hockey sim does have a re-rate which is based on the season. The game should take into account that a scrub that finally gets a chance to play could improve once at the big league level, conversely if he goes 3 for 41 he may find his way out the game sooner.

04-03-2002, 08:35 AM	#5
Kelric Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Greater Boston Area Posts: 3,992	Don't forget the all time where the hell did he come from guy: Bret Boone.

04-03-2002, 08:54 AM	#7
fluharty All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Morgantown, WV Posts: 1,023	Another name that deserves mentioning: Luis Gonzalez Look at his 91-98 stats, then look at his 99-01 stats. An example of a solid player suddenly becomming a super-star at 32-33 years old.

04-03-2002, 08:59 AM	#8
Civ2boss Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 39	Well if you think about it if these players have a fluke season and kept it up, it couldn't be a fluke now would it? Take Jamie Moyer for example since '96 he has been Pedro like! His record was 92-41 and Perdo was 97-38 , I mean everyone says he's a fluke yet he kept on winning like a Randy, or a Glavine.

04-03-2002, 01:19 PM	#9
majormet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,536	Moyer and Luis Gonzalez are great examples of guys that probably would have had low ratings and put up a stunning season and have gone on to greatness. I guess I am looking to see if there is a way to draft a guy in the 8th round and have him stink and then your 2nd baseman goes down and you can't sign a 2nd baseman and you give this 3 rated player a chance and he hits .285 over 300 at bats, I would think that the MLB experience improved the player from a 3 to a 5. Scott, I would think the rating evaluator would only change certain players so that realism sets in but not dramatically, we are not saying hmm Olmedo Saenz has 35 HR and 110 RBI's with a 310 avg, lets improve his Avg from 4 to 8 and HR from 5 to 8. More like 4 to 5 and 5 to 6, so that you have a controversy if Carlos Pena would be injured and now you have 2 first baseman and trade bait. I just would like to see some mobility in ratings to account for players that beat the odds. I mean a 4 rated player bats .295 for 300 at bats in 2003, he jumps to a 5 in 2004, but bats .243 since a 5 would normally bat around that are, meanwhile he has trade value and will ask for money based on his ratings increase of a slight nature. But if you follow this re-rate factor you may have that occasional player last until he is 45 years old, or that Craig Counsell type of player that comes through out of nowhere. I just feel that the wish list for OOTP5 would be well covered with some player re-rate when proceeding to the next year. Wish List item often cited here include: a) Having a Jesse Orosco or Charlie Hough type pitch into their mid 40's, I would say 1 out of 1200 players would last this long, but with a re-rate, a 42 year old pitcher that is still under 4.00 ERA should go on to the next season. Also under this wish list item, a few players may make it into the hall of fame. b) Injuries, lack of playing time and other factors that can weaken a player should be accounted for. Robin Ventura blew out his shoulder and became a horrid player in his early 30's, his ratings should decline somewhat or a player like him for his injury. Re-rate should factor a) last year's stats/career, and ratings and adjust by 1/30th of the deviation. A player could jump from a 4 to a 7 in 3 years, if they have 3 fluke seasons in a row. Jamie Moyer would fit this pattern, but in OOTP4 he is nearing 40 so he probably gets horrible each year rather than better. I love the game, and just am trying to add something to the game to get closer to realsim, but also a moving target beyond one's control is great for the challenge of the game.

04-03-2002, 01:32 PM	#10
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,209	Isn't it ironic that we have one thread complaining about the ratings moving and another one complaining that they don't move? <a href="http://www.ootpbb.com/board/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001667" target="_blank">http://www.ootpbb.com/board/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001667</a> My point is the ratings already change, and the players ratings don't necessarily influence their retirement... how much they play and how long they are signed seems to. I have a 38 year old pitcher rated 8's and 7's who emailed me to let me know he's hanging it up... The fact is we don't know the players actual ratings the values you see are always just your scouts impression, and the ratings do change, and sometimes your scouts impression will already change, I just don't think we need to use the stats to revise the ratings, as the stats are already derived from the ratings, you'd get a circular (and infinte) loop of changes if you do it in this fashion. Of course that's my opinion and I could be wrong.

04-03-2002, 01:52 PM	#11
majormet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,536	Scott, perhaps. I guess I am playing my 1962 league into 1979 and I move at a clip of a season every 3-4 weeks. I have had players come up and have fluke seasons and there is never that dimension where they continue to produce at some level better than their original ratings. What is the oldest player you have ever had as well, I had Hank Foiles make it to 42 years old, and it seems catchers last longer.

04-03-2002, 04:37 PM	#13
majormet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,536	Draft Dodger, good points. Rick Reed, Jamie Moyer and others are guys with no hype that kicked around 5-7 years and then had a breakout season and ended up having great careers, they are few. The Johnstone I was talking of was Jay, who was a pinch hitter for the White Sox and had a nothing career even took a tour of the minors before resurrecting in Philly when Bake McBride got hurt and then had 10 great seasons thereafter. I guess maybe not to affect the ratings but the trade value. I mean many of the players you mentioned that had one bust out year suddenly had trade value. If for some dumb reason Mark Smith is rated a 3-4, and drills 33 homers this year, he would have huge trade value, but in OOTP you could not get a red cent for him, but in real life if Smith put up these numbers at least 9 or 10 teams would overpay for him in the pennant race.

04-03-2002, 05:03 PM	#15
majormet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,536	Draft Dodger - I am thinking of let's say taking a player that is not a prospect, for argument sake I will take in my opinion one of the worst players of all time Catcher Joe Nolan - The besspectacled catcher for the Braves and Reds. He was never a prospect and his ratings are in the 4 range, in my 1962 league now in 1979, the Mets have acquired his services and he is batting .285 with 7 homers and 35 RBI's nearly midway through the season with 4 type ratings. The Mets have Joe Torre recovering from injury and 38 years old and Bruce Eggs Benedict in AAA, so Nolan may not be needed next year. Let's say Nolan bats .279 and hits 12 homers and drives in 65 runs for 1979 standards. His ratings should go up to 5-5 or something like that based on a matrix whereby it tskes into account years of service, career stats versus the fluke year. Mainly, because Nolan should be a bit better as a player now having tasted some success and also because on the trade market he would have more value than his ratings. Now Nolan gets recomputed for 1980 and he is a 5-5, doesn't mean he will put up big numbers, he could easily drop to 3 HR, 33 RBI and .225 AVG, but at least he has improved somewhat. Even Brook Jacoby never returned to his horrible status, an injury did that player in. John Vanderwal will never put up the big numbers again but he will be better than he was before he tasted success.

04-03-2002, 05:23 PM	#16
Civ2boss Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 39	Another fluke that doesn't keep it up is Fernando Tatis, he had two lucky homeruns in that fluke seasons to become history, but since has done absolutly nothing. You could say that some players have a career year but they were just lucky for that year where everything was perfect. Then there are players like John Burkett, or Aramis Ramirez, that worked on hitting or just didn't get enough playing time. Then there are players like Pokey Reese or Jamie Moyer that were just great players we didn't know.

04-03-2002, 06:54 PM	#17
Tree Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 80	"Then there are players like Pokey Reese or Jamie Moyer that were just great players we didn't know." HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

04-03-2002, 07:32 PM	#20
Tree Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 80	You called Pokey Reese "great." I mean, that's FUNNY. His best season, he was .285/.330/.417. His career numbers are .250/.308/.363. I wonder which cap he'll wear into the Hall of Fame?