Alright boyz, here we go (OOTP6 Thoughts!) [Archive]

Ben E Lou

04-16-2004, 01:02 PM

Did you just use the word "boyz?"

Ack...Do you just spit on tradition???

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1>http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_dot_hot.gif</TD><TD class=alt2>http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif</TD><TD class=alt1Active id=t19003 title="">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//subscribed.gif Alright boyz here we go again! (TPF download/first impressions thread) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&highlight=boyz) ( http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//multipage.gif 1 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=1&highlight=boyz) 2 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=2&highlight=boyz) 3 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=3&highlight=boyz) 4 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=4&highlight=boyz) 5 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=5&highlight=boyz) 6 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=6&highlight=boyz) 7 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=7&highlight=boyz) 8 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=8&highlight=boyz) )
HornedFrog Purple
</TD><TD class=alt2 title="Replies: 373, Views: 11,203">01-11-2004 10:02 AM
by akw4572 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=19003) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=19003)
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=middle>373 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</TD><TD class=alt2 align=middle>11,203</TD><TD class=alt1>General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1>http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</TD><TD class=alt2>http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif</TD><TD class=alt1Active id=t19653 title="">Alright boyz here we go again! (FOFC post loss/first impressions thread) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19653&highlight=boyz)
Shorty3281
</TD><TD class=alt2 title="Replies: 7, Views: 216">01-05-2004 09:10 AM
by The_herd (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=19653) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=19653)
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=middle>7 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</TD><TD class=alt2 align=middle>216</TD><TD class=alt1>General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1>http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_dot_hot.gif</TD><TD class=alt2> </TD><TD class=alt1Active id=t18900 title="">Ok Boyz, here we go again! (IE: The ITP Download/Game Play thread) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&highlight=boyz) ( http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//multipage.gif 1 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&page=1&highlight=boyz) 2 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&page=2&highlight=boyz) 3 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&page=3&highlight=boyz) )
SirFozzie
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1>http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_dot_hot.gif</TD><TD class=alt2>http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif</TD><TD class=alt1Active id=t16548 title="">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//subscribed.gif Alright boyz, here we go. FOF 2004 Initial Impressions. (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=16548&highlight=boyz)
SkyDog
</TD><TD class=alt2 title="Replies: 31, Views: 1,323">11-15-2003 02:34 AM
by sachmo71 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=16548) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=16548)
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=middle>31 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</TD><TD class=alt2 align=middle>1,323</TD><TD class=alt1>General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2></TD><TD class=alt1Active id=t5995 title="">Here we go boyz, it's OOTP 5 Time! (First OOTP5 Impressions) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&highlight=boyz) ( http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//multipage.gif 1 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=1&highlight=boyz) 2 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=2&highlight=boyz) 3 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=3&highlight=boyz) 4 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=4&highlight=boyz) )
SirFozzie
</TD><TD class=alt2 title="Replies: 182, Views: 4,318">04-10-2003 12:01 PM
by Anrhydeddu (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=5995) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=5995)
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=middle>182 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</TD><TD class=alt2 align=middle>4,318</TD><TD class=alt1>General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

General Mike

04-16-2004, 01:03 PM

My thoughts are that it's gonna be another 3 hours before I even have the game installed :(

HornedFrog Purple

04-16-2004, 01:04 PM

That thread made me King of All FOFC Media.

Franklinnoble

04-16-2004, 01:08 PM

Do you just spit on tradition???

<table class="tborder" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center" border="0"><tbody><tr><td class="alt1">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_dot_hot.gif</td><td class="alt2">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif</td><td class="alt1Active" id="t19003" title="">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//subscribed.gif Alright boyz here we go again! (TPF download/first impressions thread) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&highlight=boyz) ( http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//multipage.gif 1 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=1&highlight=boyz) 2 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=2&highlight=boyz) 3 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=3&highlight=boyz) 4 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=4&highlight=boyz) 5 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=5&highlight=boyz) 6 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=6&highlight=boyz) 7 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=7&highlight=boyz) 8 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19003&page=8&highlight=boyz) )
HornedFrog Purple
</td><td class="alt2" title="Replies: 373, Views: 11,203">01-11-2004 10:02 AM
by akw4572 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=19003) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=19003)
</td><td class="alt1" align="center">373 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</td><td class="alt2" align="center">11,203</td><td class="alt1">General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</td></tr><tr><td class="alt1">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread.gif</td><td class="alt2">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif</td><td class="alt1Active" id="t19653" title="">Alright boyz here we go again! (FOFC post loss/first impressions thread) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=19653&highlight=boyz)
Shorty3281
</td><td class="alt2" title="Replies: 7, Views: 216">01-05-2004 09:10 AM
by The_herd (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=19653) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=19653)
</td><td class="alt1" align="center">7 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</td><td class="alt2" align="center">216</td><td class="alt1">General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</td></tr><tr><td class="alt1">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_dot_hot.gif</td><td class="alt2">
</td><td class="alt1Active" id="t18900" title="">Ok Boyz, here we go again! (IE: The ITP Download/Game Play thread) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&highlight=boyz) ( http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//multipage.gif 1 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&page=1&highlight=boyz) 2 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&page=2&highlight=boyz) 3 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=18900&page=3&highlight=boyz) )
SirFozzie
</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table class="tborder" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center" border="0"><tbody><tr><td class="alt1">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/statusicon/thread_dot_hot.gif</td><td class="alt2">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif</td><td class="alt1Active" id="t16548" title="">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//subscribed.gif Alright boyz, here we go. FOF 2004 Initial Impressions. (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=16548&highlight=boyz)
SkyDog
</td><td class="alt2" title="Replies: 31, Views: 1,323">11-15-2003 02:34 AM
by sachmo71 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=16548) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=16548)
</td><td class="alt1" align="center">31 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</td><td class="alt2" align="center">1,323</td><td class="alt1">General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table class="tborder" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center" border="0"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2">
</td><td class="alt1Active" id="t5995" title="">Here we go boyz, it's OOTP 5 Time! (First OOTP5 Impressions) (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&highlight=boyz) ( http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/misc//multipage.gif 1 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=1&highlight=boyz) 2 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=2&highlight=boyz) 3 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=3&highlight=boyz) 4 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=5995&page=4&highlight=boyz) )
SirFozzie
</td><td class="alt2" title="Replies: 182, Views: 4,318">04-10-2003 12:01 PM
by Anrhydeddu (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?find=lastposter&t=5995) http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/styles/yellow/buttons//lastpost.gif (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=5995)
</td><td class="alt1" align="center">182 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/search.php?searchid=11560#)</td><td class="alt2" align="center">4,318</td><td class="alt1">General Discussion (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Hey, in some places, it's traditional to eat pig's feet. Don't expect me to embrace every wacky custom coming down the pike.

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 01:08 PM

Coach hireing went pretty smooth, I noticed that all the coaches and managers are all pretty much between 40 and 60 years old and there arn't really any young guys who are very good which is kind of a drag. To people who have played previous versions, do young coaches who arn't very good get better as they age or is it sort of stagnant?

kingnebwsu

04-16-2004, 01:10 PM

Sim speed is way way slower. Not that this is so bad, it gives me more time to analyze everything when I do my weekly sims.

I like the 100-point rating system. I wonder, can people be above 100? I know in OOTP 5 some (rare) people would be rated 11&12. Just wondering :)

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 01:15 PM

Ughhhh, first thing that really ticks me off, In the initial draft, when you sort by batting or pitching rateings when looking at players, you cannot see their age, you have to constantly toggle. The initial league draft is a huge feature for me and this is a minor annoyance.

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 01:25 PM

Addendum on the draft screen. At the very least the age, speed, stealing ability and running rateings should be on the general bating rateings screen. About 40% of the draft page is taken up by the huge font draft order portion which could easily be reduced to a smaller font and take up much less space which would allow for a wider rateings info area, as it is it's a bit tedious to toggle back and forth and find out how old and what the running ability of the best rated hitters are.

kingnebwsu

04-16-2004, 01:27 PM

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 01:28 PM

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 01:31 PM

korme

04-16-2004, 01:33 PM

What are the initial thoughts on rating scales?

I started with:

Ratings: 1-100
Talents: 1-10 (don't wanna see a perfect idea of how good)
Other: 1-20 (speed ratings to remind me of CM)

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 01:36 PM

I started with all ratings at 1-100. It's just an easier system to use when getting my feet wet.

mtaystl03

04-16-2004, 01:46 PM

Sounds almost exactly like MLB nowadays to me.

Sure does. The Marlins and Angels sure didn't win 110 games.

LloydLungs

04-16-2004, 01:47 PM

I think you'd probably see slightly fewer postseason upsets if home field advantage were part of the game -- as it stands now there's no particular point to having the best record as everything is even in the playoffs. That said, in a short series you're always going to see upsets.

Bonegavel

04-16-2004, 01:47 PM

Penis Fence!!!

[edit - ever since the comment was made about that icon looking like the above phrase, I can't help but laugh every time i see it. I don't like baseball, but I may be giving this one a shot.]

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 01:59 PM

NOOOOO!!! PLAYOFF RESULTS!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!! IT'S ALL HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!!!!

What I mean is, upsets in 3 of the 4 first round series. Houston and their 106 wins got beat 3-1 in the first round by 90-win Philadelphia. Sigh. I know it's only the first season, but this does not bode well for "realistic" postseason results. Epic world series between the 90-win Phillies and 91-win White Sox.

Double sigh :(

King, this was mentioned on the beta boards, so you're not alone. However, bear with me for a moment:

Currently, 4 teams from each league make the playoffs. Let's go with your 106 win Astros and your 90 win Phillies. Astros have a winning percentage of .654, while the Phils are at .555. Ok...now...according to the standings, over a 162 game schedule they are 16 games "different". That means 1 game in every 10 the Astros won, where the Phillies did not.

Now, let's put this in the context of a 5 game series. Is there REALLY much difference between the two teams mathematically? After all, it takes about 10 games to see that one game difference.

Caveat: I'm sure there are some real statisticians out there that can run these numbers much better than I can - if you can shed some light on this, please do.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the Astros have a 60% chance of winning a single game against anyone they face in the playoffs - that may be a little high, but I think it's fair for this scenario. Based on a .600 winning pct in the playoffs, the Astros have about a 66% chance of winning a 5 game series. The next round they have about 70+% chance, and the same for the championship series, if they make it. So, the odds of the Astros winning the championship title is about 37.1%.

Really, it's not an OOTP thing - it's math.

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 02:02 PM

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 02:17 PM

King, this was mentioned on the beta boards, so you're not alone. However, bear with me for a moment:

Currently, 4 teams from each league make the playoffs. Let's go with your 106 win Astros and your 90 win Phillies. Astros have a winning percentage of .654, while the Phils are at .555. Ok...now...according to the standings, over a 162 game schedule they are 16 games "different". That means 1 game in every 10 the Astros won, where the Phillies did not.

Now, let's put this in the context of a 5 game series. Is there REALLY much difference between the two teams mathematically? After all, it takes about 10 games to see that one game difference.

Caveat: I'm sure there are some real statisticians out there that can run these numbers much better than I can - if you can shed some light on this, please do.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the Astros have a 60% chance of winning a single game against anyone they face in the playoffs - that may be a little high, but I think it's fair for this scenario. Based on a .600 winning pct in the playoffs, the Astros have about a 66% chance of winning a 5 game series. The next round they have about 70+% chance, and the same for the championship series, if they make it. So, the odds of the Astros winning the championship title is about 37.1%.

Really, it's not an OOTP thing - it's math.

Craig, from a mathematics standpoint, I agree with you there.

I think what Ben is getting at is that there haven't been all THAT many teams in contemporary baseball who pull off stunning upsets to make it to the World Series (or to win IN the World Series).

Otherwise, the Yanks probably wouldn't have as many pennants and championships as they do, huh? :)

It does happen, obviously. The 1988 Dodgers, and basically anybody who's played against the Braves in the last decade being more recent examples.

He and I were having a discussion about it earlier in the month, though, and when I checked out baseball-reference.com, most of the "surprising" outcomes were, comparatively speaking, in the World Series. There weren't too many examples of teams with win totals in the low 90s (or lower) bumping off teams with 105+ wins (the Seattle Mariners notwithstanding :D).

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 02:25 PM

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I wonder if a lack of true home field advantage is partly responsible for this.

Second, just to play devil's advocate, in the grand scheme of things, baseball's expansion of it's playoff format was a very recent occurrence. That may be part of the reason why so "few" upsets have occurred in history (although we can look back at the Marlins and Angels for recent examples). Also, I do remember the Twins winning the WS despite having a horrible record away from the 'dome and in my childhood I remember the Royals winning in '85 despite having an only slight above average team. It does happen, obviously.

Besides a homefield advantage, however, I'm not sure what can be done. Obviously, it would be out of the question to artificially change the engine so the "good" teams win.

Edit: spelling and grammar

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 02:25 PM

I'm checking the results of league playoffs (LCS, LDS) again at baseball-reference.com, and so far, other than the Yanks knocking off Seattle in '01, I've only seen one example of a team with a W/L record at least 10 games worse than their opponent actually advancing: the 1997 Cleveland Indians (86-75) beat the New York Yankees (96-66). I'm as far back as 1991 now, and those are still the two main examples of teams overcoming THAT large a discrepancy.

And I think that's what Ben's most irked about. Not so much a 93 win team knocking off a 96 win team with regularity - 3 wins, in different divisions, isn't statistically significant - but instead a 91 win team routinely knocking off a 105 win team. That simply doesn't happen in real life with the regularity it does in OOTP.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 02:29 PM

I don't the numbers in front of me, but I wonder if a lack of true home field advantage is party responsible for this.

Second, just to play devil's advocate, in the grand scheme of things, baseball's expansion of it's playoff format was a very recent occurrence. That may be part of the reason why so "few" upsets have occurred in history (although we can look back at the Marlins and Angels for recent examples). Also, I do remember the Twins winning the WS despite having a horrible record away from the 'dome and in my childhood I remember the Royals winning in '85 despite having an only slight above average team. It does happen, obviously.

Besides a homefield advantage, however, I'm not sure what can be done. Obviously, it would be out of the question to artificially change the engine so the "good" teams win.

That could be. Keep in mind one thing, though: you know how in the NBA, the East is significantly weaker than the West? There were a few years like that back in the old two-divisional format, where the team coming out of the East was significantly stronger than the one coming out of the West (or vice versa). Yeah, we didn't have that extra round of playoffs, but at the same time, you had two divisional champions, and they weren't always evenly matched.

Look at the '88 ALCS. The A's had 104 wins, the Red Sox had 89, and the A's made mincemeat of the Sox in 4 straight. Ordinarily, that's the result you'd expect to see (the victory, if not necessarily a sweep). With OOTP, all bets are off.

Now, go back a year to '87, and yeah, the 85 win Twins knocked off the 98 win Tigers. As I said, it does happen...but that's three times in 17 years.

Maybe homefield advantage is part of the issue, but I can't imagine that's solely responsible for why teams with gaudy win/loss records lose so frequently in the playoffs.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 02:31 PM

Dola,

1984, the Royals were fully *20* games worse than the Tigers. Guess what? The Royals got swept.

yabanci

04-16-2004, 02:35 PM

Is there a help file or manual somewhere? What exactly do the "player creation modifiers" on the custom league setup do and why would I want to change them?

stevew

04-16-2004, 02:35 PM

I noticed that if you import an Old league, and have starting pitchers set as Relievers or closers, their duration converts at - which I believe is worse than zero. So, if they are starters, you need to switch them to starters, at least until you finish converting.

HighandOutside

04-16-2004, 02:38 PM

I hate to be a neophyte pain in the a**.. but what do I have to do to make the pull down menus readable...I'm sorry this is my first time trying the game

stevew

04-16-2004, 02:39 PM

I hate to be a neophyte pain in the a**.. but what do I have to do to make the pull down menus readable...I'm sorry this is my first time trying the game

You gotta disable Direct3d support in the configuration menu.

yabanci

04-16-2004, 02:41 PM

I'm really happy to see the option to turn off the gold stars.

Vince

04-16-2004, 02:41 PM

Very sad that I forgot to pre-order.

HighandOutside

04-16-2004, 02:42 PM

Thanks steveW...

Huckleberry

04-16-2004, 02:42 PM

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 02:43 PM

One of the first guys I drafted I notice has no control and not alot of potential for control but is listed as having 0 potential for Wild Pitches.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 02:51 PM

My really crappy first mathematical guess tells me that a 106 win team should win at a .588... clip against a 90 win team.

That would mean a 66.3% chance of winning a 5 game series. So the upset should happen in 1 out of 3 series, mathematically. Of course, in the real world factors like a tremendous top 3 starters with a very weak #4 and #5 starter combination on the weaker team would greatly increase the chance of the upset. #4 and #5 starter strength help with regular season wins but are minimized in the playoffs.

Right. If the teams were more or less equal strength, and simply had a different winning percentage, then strict mathematics would apply. But, realistically speaking, there's generally a reason -why- a team that's 10+ games better than another team is in that position in the first place.

And that's also why only 3 teams in the last 25 years (as far back as I've gone) have been 10+ games worse than their opponent in the LCS or LDS and won.

General Mike

04-16-2004, 02:51 PM

One of the first guys I drafted I notice has no control and not alot of potential for control but is listed as having 0 potential for Wild Pitches.
I wasn't aware that they changed wild pitches to a rating now. I thought it was just an approximate number of wild pitches per 550 batters faced. same with HBP and balks.

Huckleberry

04-16-2004, 02:52 PM

Sack Attack -

What about in the World Series?

Huckleberry

04-16-2004, 02:58 PM

By the way, I've only gotten through 2000 going backwards and I show 2 upsets out of 4 chances in the LCS or LDS where a team has beaten an opponent that had at least 10 more wins than they did. And 1 for 1 in the World Series, which leaves us at 3 out of 5 matchups have resulted in the upset in the last 4 years.

edit - And then I got to 1998, where the big underdog put up a big 0-fer-4 spot to make it 3 out of 9. :)

edit again - I'm wondering what series you missed. Cleveland upset two teams in the AL Playoffs with at least 10 more wins in 1997. So there have been 5 out of 12 matchups resulting in upsets since 1997.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:01 PM

samifan24

04-16-2004, 03:03 PM

I'm running an initial draft and came across something odd: a 21 yo stud 3B prospect with the following ratings: Stuff: 2, Control: 8, Movement: 3 :eek: (all out of 10). Sure, he's got great potential, but does this mean the guy will be the next Brooks Kieschnick (sic) or Dave McCarty?

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 03:04 PM

I wasn't aware that they changed wild pitches to a rating now. I thought it was just an approximate number of wild pitches per 550 batters faced. same with HBP and balks.

Yeah, i worded it wrong. It is an approxomate number of wild pitches, but still, to have 0 wild pitches for a guy whose control is 0 is a little off. All of my complaints aside I am pretty immersed in the game at the moment.

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 03:04 PM

Is there a help file or manual somewhere? What exactly do the "player creation modifiers" on the custom league setup do and why would I want to change them?

There is a new manual incoming...

Player creation modifiers are only used if you don't feel OOTP's current system suits your needs. OOTP is designed to create new players that look like your typical modern day player. If you want to change these in any way, the option is yours (though I personally would feel no need to touch these - ever :)).

-Craig

Maple Leafs

04-16-2004, 03:05 PM

Random thought...

There's an old baseball adage that every team will win 50 games and lose 50 games, and that it's what you do with the other 60 that determines your season. If you believe that, then you could argue that a 100 win team is actually 25% better than a 90 win team (50/10 vs 40/20), not 10% or so better.

Not sure if that way of thinking has much value, but it could help explain why real life upsets seem to happen less frequently than the percentages would expect.

Huckleberry

04-16-2004, 03:06 PM

1997 - Cleveland/New York, Cleveland/Baltimore (3 matchups)
1998 - None (3 matchups)
1999 - None (No matchups)
2000 - None (No matchups)
2001 - New York/Seattle (2 matchups)
2002 - None (No matchups)
2003 - Chicago/Atlanta (2 matchups)

That's not counting the World Series. I'm done for now as I've got work to do. However, I want to clarify that I'm doing this study not as a defense of OOTP but as an indictment of the MLB playoff system. I've got plenty of issues with OOTP, but a much bigger one with 5 and 7 game series being used to decide things in a sport with a 162 game season.

I would prefer that baseball go to a 9 game series at each round with one off day to mimic the regular season. They can reduce the regular season from 162 to 154 and then the max number of games for any team stays the same.

GoldenEagle

04-16-2004, 03:11 PM

I found a potential bug. I messed around with some of the rating numbers and went back to the player screen and the starts were gone. I have never touched the star rating, so why would it do this?

Bonegavel

04-16-2004, 03:12 PM

Right. If the teams were more or less equal strength, and simply had a different winning percentage, then strict mathematics would apply. But, realistically speaking, there's generally a reason -why- a team that's 10+ games better than another team is in that position in the first place.

And that's also why only 3 teams in the last 25 years (as far back as I've gone) have been 10+ games worse than their opponent in the LCS or LDS and won.
Does that mean then, that the game should change its algorithms of love for the playoffs and make that majority of 10+ better teams always win the series?

I would assume that the same engine is at work in both regular season and playoffs in OOTP6, which makes this even more interesting. Shouldn't this all just be built in to happen "correctly"?

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:16 PM

Huck,

I'm not checking the World Series, just LDS and LCS. I'll go doublecheck again, but I've only found a handful so far. the Yanks/Mariners in 2001, the Indians vs the Yanks in '97, and the Twins vs the Tigers in '87. That's been it, so far. I'll get back to you with more.

Alright, here's a list of every "upset" I've found in LDS/LCS play the last 25 years. I've defined 'upset' as a team being at least 10 games worse than their opponent (since that's primarily what we're looking at in OOTP):

2003:

Chicago (88-74) over Atlanta (101-61)
Florida finished 9.5 games worse, so I'll ignore that for now.

2001:

New York A (88-74) over Seattle (116-46)

1997:

Cleveland (86-75) over Baltimore (98-64)
Cleveland (86-75) over NYA (96-66)

1996:

Baltimore (88-74) over Cleveland (99-63)

1995: ignored due to strike year

1987: Minnesota (85-77) over Detroit (98-64)

1981: ignored due to strike year

1973: New York N (82-79) over Cincinnati (99-63)

That's everybody, through 1970.

7 times in 34 years, a team that was exactly 10 games or worse has managed to defeat their opponent, not counting World Series matchups. There were a few examples of teams that were 7 and 8 games worse winning, as well as the 9.5 game discrepancy between Florida and San Francisco last year, but there were just as many examples of that going the other way, if not more.

I'll say it again. 7 times in 34 years. It doesn't happen IRL with anything close to the regularity that it does in OOTP. Now, I will admit that I missed the 2nd 1997 occurrence, and the 2003 Cubs when I went through the results the first time, but that's still only two additional examples.

Schmidty

04-16-2004, 03:17 PM

Random thought...

There's an old baseball adage that every team will win 50 games and lose 50 games........

The person who came up with that was obviously not a Tigers fan.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:18 PM

That's not counting the World Series. I'm done for now as I've got work to do. However, I want to clarify that I'm doing this study not as a defense of OOTP but as an indictment of the MLB playoff system. I've got plenty of issues with OOTP, but a much bigger one with 5 and 7 game series being used to decide things in a sport with a 162 game season.

I agree, I have more serious issues with the game as well. I simply don't want to see this dismissed, as it is clearly out of whack, and it does influence at least some people's enjoyment of the game. Should the better team win every single time? Clearly not, but at the same time, if it's only happened 7 times in 34 years in real life, seeing it happen, say, 20 times in a 15 year span in OOTP is clearly out of whack.

TRO

04-16-2004, 03:19 PM

Im seeing a bad mix of guys with great speed and no stealing ability and guys with moderate speed and great stealing ability. Not that a few of these guys arnt around but theyre are very few guys with great speed and great stealing ability.
Speed and Stealing should not correlate. I see no problem with a 100 speed guy with 0 Stealing ability.

Just because somebody it fast, doesn't mean he knows how to read a pitcher. The same goes for the new "baserunning instincts" rating.

Eaglesfan27

04-16-2004, 03:21 PM

My thoughts are: I'm glad I see this thread as I just got home and this lets me know it is out :) Downloading now!

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 03:22 PM

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:22 PM

Does that mean then, that the game should change its algorithms of love for the playoffs and make that majority of 10+ better teams always win the series?

"the majority" and "always" are either redundant, or incongruous with one another. If a 10+ team always wins, then that's not "just" the majority. ;)

That said, I don't want to see the game change to where it becomes a matter of matching up the win/loss totals and picking a winner that way. That wouldn't be any fun either.

But you have people who put in a lot of work in building their dynasty-level teams, something capable of winning 105 games, and there starts to be a "what's the point?" mentality when they consistently lose in the playoffs.

Even just from a sales standpoint, it should be clear why that isn't a good thing.

[b]I would assume that the same engine is at work in both regular season and playoffs in OOTP6, which makes this even more interesting. Shouldn't this all just be built in to happen "correctly"?[/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here.

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 03:22 PM

Quick question, I'd like to see some stats on how leagues in OOTP that don't have the wildcard vs leagues that do have the wild card stack up as far as the underdog winning. My general feeling is that with the Wild Card in effect the number of upsets will always be out of whack for the simple fact that they're are more chances for the underdog to win. I will never be useing the wildcard so I can't be of any help to that. :)

kingnebwsu

04-16-2004, 03:23 PM

And I think that's what Ben's most irked about. Not so much a 93 win team knocking off a 96 win team with regularity - 3 wins, in different divisions, isn't statistically significant - but instead a 91 win team routinely knocking off a 105 win team. That simply doesn't happen in real life with the regularity it does in OOTP.

Exactly. I've complained/whined/given examples of this many times before. I can't tell you how many times I've had three 20-game winners, scored 900-1100 runs, had great defense, and then lost in the first round of the playoffs. Not 3-2 first round losses, more like 3-1 and even sometimes the 3-0 dreaded sweep. I was hoping the new engine would fix whatever was causing this problem, which is why I bought OOTP 6. If my postseason issues still exist, it will be the last version of OOTP I purchase.

It's not that I expect to win every season, or that I want the team with the best record to win every season...it's that I want to see results that accurately reflect a team's ability to win. I hope the new game gives me that. I know the Marlins, Angels, 1990's Braves, etc. But speaking strictly in OOTP's universe, when my team has a hitting advantage at EVERY position in the lineup AND with every pitcher, and I lose the series in 3 or 4 games...that's just ridiculous.

I haven't fiddled with OOTP 6 enough to make a determination. I'm sure I'll play at least a decade or so with my transferred OOTP 5 career, but hopefully I see postseason results that more suit what I want to see out of the game.

This is something I did about 30 years into my OOTP 5 career. I figured out how the WS champs did in their respective leagues and here were my results...

#1 RECORD-6
#2 RECORD-7
#3 RECORD-10
WILD CARD-8

Those numbers seem to indicate a toss-up mentality to the postseason. Of course, these numbers don't mean much without other indicators, but it does show some of what my problem is.

(Shrug) hopefully the new engine and other modifications make it so the 100+ win teams don't get bounced/swept in the first round.

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 03:24 PM

Speed and Stealing should not correlate. I see no problem with a 100 speed guy with 0 Stealing ability.

Just because somebody it fast, doesn't mean he knows how to read a pitcher. The same goes for the new "baserunning instincts" rating.

I'm not saying they should correlate 100% of the time, but the fact that nearly every fast guy has no ability to steal and nearly every guy with the ability to steal is not fast is disturbing. There are very guys who are both fast and can steal.

primelord

04-16-2004, 03:25 PM

Yeah, i worded it wrong. It is an approxomate number of wild pitches, but still, to have 0 wild pitches for a guy whose control is 0 is a little off. All of my complaints aside I am pretty immersed in the game at the moment.
I don't see a problem with that. Just because a pitcher doesn't have much control doesn't always have to mean he will throw a lot of wild piitches. Unless he is Rick Ankiel wild most major league pitchers, even the ones who walk a ton of guys, can pretty much always put it where the catcher can catch it. Most wild pitches are from breaking balls in the dirt and those can come from pitchers with great control.

Masked

04-16-2004, 03:25 PM

I'll say it again. 7 times in 34 years. It doesn't happen IRL with anything close to the regularity that it does in OOTP. Now, I will admit that I missed the 2nd 1997 occurrence, and the 2003 Cubs when I went through the results the first time, but that's still only two additional examples.
How many times has a team with 10 or more wins more than their opponent won their series?

What I am getting at - are upsets more frequent or is the disparity in wins amongst playoff teams greater in OOTP than IRL? If there are more series involving teams with greater than 10 wins disparity then it follows that there should be a greater number of these upsets occuring.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:26 PM

I'm all ears for suggestions.

As part of this, I'll look at the management decisions made by the field management AI. Perhaps there's no urgency on the AI's part to keep the best players in for the majority of the time? Maybe the fifth starter is getting too many starts? Again, I haven't really looked into this in great detail...but if anyone sees anything they find troubling (besides the final results), I'd love to hear it.

-Craig

I would suspect it's a combination of factors, but the two you've already mentioned jump out at me the most:

1) The lack of 'true' homefield advantage. Look at the 2002 Angels and the "ThunderStix" their fans employed. Yes, those are pro athletes who should be able to block out distractions, but that's just an incredible level of noise to deal with if you're a visiting team. OOTP can't model the noise, obviously, but the effect of home field in the playoffs is clearly important.

2) You may have hit on something above, with the regular season algorithm for player substitution being used in the playoffs, when it shouldn't be.

3) Don't I remember something about OOTP's difficulty artificially increasing against humans controlling really good teams, to keep the challenge factor high? Not saying that needs to be removed (if it is, in fact, present), but when combined with the other two, I can see how it might be exacerbating the problem.

sttfrk

04-16-2004, 03:27 PM

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:28 PM

How many times has a team with 10 or more wins more than their opponent won their series?

What I am getting at - are upsets more frequent or is the disparity in wins amongst playoff teams greater in OOTP than IRL? If there are more series involving teams with greater than 10 wins disparity then it follows that there should be a greater number of these upsets occuring.

That's a good question. Give me twenty minutes or so, and I'll look that information up.

primelord

04-16-2004, 03:30 PM

1) The lack of 'true' homefield advantage. Look at the 2002 Angels and the "ThunderStix" their fans employed. Yes, those are pro athletes who should be able to block out distractions, but that's just an incredible level of noise to deal with if you're a visiting team. OOTP can't model the noise, obviously, but the effect of home field in the playoffs is clearly important.
I thought it was all due to the rally monkey. :)

Bonegavel

04-16-2004, 03:32 PM

"the majority" and "always" are either redundant, or incongruous with one another. If a 10+ team always wins, then that's not "just" the majority. ;)

That said, I don't want to see the game change to where it becomes a matter of matching up the win/loss totals and picking a winner that way. That wouldn't be any fun either.

But you have people who put in a lot of work in building their dynasty-level teams, something capable of winning 105 games, and there starts to be a "what's the point?" mentality when they consistently lose in the playoffs.

Even just from a sales standpoint, it should be clear why that isn't a good thing.

[b]I would assume that the same engine is at work in both regular season and playoffs in OOTP6, which makes this even more interesting. Shouldn't this all just be built in to happen "correctly"?
I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here.
We must run in different FOFC circles, because my posts, in the majority, always, though almost without fail, certainly more than occasionaly, contain a bit of word fun.

With that said (actually, written) what is being purported here is that a team 10+ games ahead will win. 7 times in the last 34 years this has been false. That tells me that people that desire real world BB need to have the playoff system tooled to a more simple resolution. If you have 10+ wins, you will win.

As far as my second quote, i was trying to point out that if the game was able to produce a team over the season that was 10+ in games, this team should obviously be better and the normal game engine should handle it properly. It obviously doesn't.

Ben E Lou

04-16-2004, 03:33 PM

Where do I get that schedule generator? My team is off on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday one week. :mad:

Maple Leafs

04-16-2004, 03:34 PM

Speed and Stealing should not correlate. I see no problem with a 100 speed guy with 0 Stealing ability. Just because somebody it fast, doesn't mean he knows how to read a pitcher. The same goes for the new "baserunning instincts" rating.But which one is determining success at stealing bases? That's the key question.

In previous versions, you could have a guy with E-speed and A-stealing and, if you ran him agressively, have him steal 30 bases easily. It was as if the stealing rating trumped the speed rating. That doesn't seem right. It seems like one should be a modifier for the other, not a replacement.

I can think of fast guys who don't know how to steal, but I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone in real life who's consider very slow but steals a lot of bases. There may be slow guys who can read pitchers, anticipate moves, etc. But those guys still don't get many steals, because they're just not fast enough. So I don't mind OOTP generating guys with low-speed, high-stealing ability. I just don't want to see those guys running wild.

sttfrk

04-16-2004, 03:37 PM

John Galt

04-16-2004, 03:37 PM

Where do I get that schedule generator? My team is off on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday one week. :mad:

Can I get that schedule in real life? :)

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 03:38 PM

What the hell is the deal with the menus?

John Galt

04-16-2004, 03:39 PM

But which one is determining success at stealing bases? That's the key question.

In previous versions, you could have a guy with E-speed and A-stealing and, if you ran him agressively, have him steal 30 bases easily. It was as if the stealing rating trumped the speed rating. That doesn't seem right. It seems like one should be a modifier for the other, not a replacement.

I can think of fast guys who don't know how to steal, but I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone in real life who's consider very slow but steals a lot of bases. There may be slow guys who can read pitchers, anticipate moves, etc. But those guys still don't get many steals, because they're just not fast enough. So I don't mind OOTP generating guys with low-speed, high-stealing ability. I just don't want to see those guys running wild.

Has there ever been a slow, base stealer? Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of one. Sure, someone may grab 10 bags and be slow, but I just don't know of any slow baseballers. Speed is a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT condition for stealing a lot of bases.

Maple Leafs

04-16-2004, 03:41 PM

Has there ever been a slow, base stealer? Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of one. Sure, someone may grab 10 bags and be slow, but I just don't know of any slow baseballers. Speed is a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT condition for stealing a lot of bases.Right. But those guys do exist in OOTP (or at least in v5), which is the problem.

John Galt

04-16-2004, 03:41 PM

Right. But those guys do exist in OOTP (or at least in v5), which is the problem.

And I agree, that is a problem.

Bonegavel

04-16-2004, 03:42 PM

but when it comes to playoffs, shouldn't we really be looking at the won/loss records of each team's top 3 starters?!?

Maybe the 100 win team had all 5 of their starters win 15 games with the bullpen picking up the rest while the 90 win team had 3 18-20 game winners with 12 game winners as their 4th and 5th starters.

Just seems odd that we are only looking at the overall record to determine playoff success...

I mean what if my 85 win team has 3 good lefthanded starters and the 100 win team only managed 20 wins against lefties?!?

Just too much other factors to look at than overall record alone. Again, IMHO.

Thanks.
To me, the point that is being made is that it appears IRL (smartass john) the team with 10+ wins will be the victor.

However, i think the figure that was used (7 in 34 years) has to be coupled with the number of times teams have met that had 10 games separating them. IOW, if the facts came out that 7 times in 34 years teams that were 10- won, but there were only 14 games that had teams that were this far apart playing, this changes things a bit.

Alan T

04-16-2004, 03:43 PM

I think I saw Cecil Fielder steal a base once. No throw from the catcher. I think he caught everyone by suprise.

henry296

04-16-2004, 03:45 PM

Rafael Palmeiro already has a stolen based this year and makes him on pace for 20 this season.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:46 PM

2001:
Seattle (116-46) over Cleveland (91-71)

1998:
New York A (114-48) over Cleveland (89-73)
New York A (114-48) over Texas (88-74)
Atlanta (106-56) over Chicago (90-73)

1997:
Atlanta (101-61) over Houston (84-78)

1995:

Cleveland (100-44) over Seattle (79-66)
Cleveland (100-44) over Boston (86-58)

*Note: I include '95 in this analysis, despite the strike year, only because Cleveland was overwhelmingly better than either of those two teams, even despite the shortened schedule. Atlanta was also 13 games better than their LDS opponent (and won), but that's more a reflection of how weak the NL West was that year with LA and Colorado, so I'm ignoring that.

1990:

Oakland (103-59) over Boston (88-74)

1989:

Oakland (99-63) over Toronto (89-73)

1988:

Oakland (104-58) over Boston (89-73)

1986:

New York N (108-54) over Houston (96-66)

1984:

Detroit (104-58) over Kansas City (84-78)

1981: ignored due to strike year (the slate of games was simply too short, even though the A's WERE 10+ better than the Royals that year, and beat them in the playoffs)

1979:

Baltimore (102-57) over California (88-74)

1975:

Cincinnati (108-54) over Pittsburgh (92-69)

1974:

Los Angeles (102-60) over Pittsburgh (88-74)

1970:

Baltimore (108-54) over Minnesota (98-64)
Cincinnati (102-60) over Pittsburgh (89-73)

Again, going back 34 years. I count 17 times (ignoring '81 and Atlanta in '95)) one team was 10+ games better and, and won the LDS or LCS. This ignores the World Series. You could argue against the two Cleveland examples from '95, I suppose, but that still leaves 15 times it happened, compared with 7 times it went the other way.

Does it happen? Sure, I've never argued against that. It's simply the *frequency* with which it happens in OOTP compared to real life that's troubling.

Maple Leafs

04-16-2004, 03:48 PM

I think I saw Cecil Fielder steal a base once. No throw from the catcher. I think he caught everyone by suprise.He did in fact steal a base. In fact, I think he holds the record for most games before recording a first stolen base.

Of course in OOTP, he could just study base-stealing techniques, work his way to E/A speed and then lead the league.

SackAttack

04-16-2004, 03:48 PM

With that said (actually, written) what is being purported here is that a team 10+ games ahead will win. 7 times in the last 34 years this has been false.

No, no. Will *generally* win. I've never argued that it always happens that way - simply that the underdog wins much less frequently in "real life" than it seems to in OOTP, and if we're looking for an accurate simulation of the sport, then that needs to be looked at.

I'm not suggesting the underdog should never win, but I AM suggesting that there are just a few too many examples in OOTP of teams that should be dominant becoming the Atlanta Braves of their particular era.

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 03:53 PM

Is anyone else having a problem reading anything on the screen? I've tried all the skins...

Ben E Lou

04-16-2004, 03:53 PM

Where do I get that schedule generator? My team is off on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday one week. :mad:Ahem.

General Mike

04-16-2004, 03:55 PM

Dola - regarding home field advantage...

I'd like to see this in the game as well, to some degree. I think the numbers and the exact influence still need to be worked out, but there have been some interesting conversations regarding this on the OOTP boards that shed some light on this.

Based on the numbers from baseball-reference.com, in the last 9 years (since the wildcard), the home team has won 151 of 296 playoff games. It probably would be a little different if you threw out all the sweeps that occur, but I really don't think homefield advantage is that sufficient of a number. It might make a difference in the 7th game of a series, or even the 5th game in a best of 5, but besides that it's irrelevant, IMO.

Ksyrup

04-16-2004, 03:56 PM

Try this:

http://newrepublic.silvergriffin.com/ootptools/schedule%20generator.zip

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 03:56 PM

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 03:58 PM

Ahem.

Do a search on Stickware - it's an excellent utility that writes directly into OOTP format.

Ben E Lou

04-16-2004, 03:59 PM

Try this:

http://newrepublic.silvergriffin.com/ootptools/schedule%20generator.zip
Thanks!

Does this sucker only work for 3-division leagues?

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 04:01 PM

HighandOutside

04-16-2004, 04:02 PM

Lynch,

Go back to the first page of this thread...the answer is there.

Ksyrup

04-16-2004, 04:02 PM

Thanks!

Does this sucker only work for 3-division leagues?
I don't think so. It should work for 2 and 4 division leagues, at least. I know I've used it in a basic 12-20 team, 2 divisions per league set up.

The only thing I'm not sure of is whether the generator that is at that link is the most up to date version. I just searched for it and posted it. I'm not sure where I got my version.

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 04:03 PM

Based on the numbers from baseball-reference.com, in the last 9 years (since the wildcard), the home team has won 151 of 296 playoff games. It probably would be a little different if you threw out all the sweeps that occur, but I really don't think homefield advantage is that sufficient of a number. It might make a difference in the 7th game of a series, or even the 5th game in a best of 5, but besides that it's irrelevant, IMO.

Thanks for looking that up. Based on those numbers, you're right - it seems home field advantage isn't the answer.

BTW - regarding my earlier listing of possibilities as to why the lesser team wins as many playoff series as they do - I don't know for a fact the AI does anything differently during the playoffs. I know the engine stays the same, but I'm not sure the AI manages any differently. However, I am skeptical that this would be the answer.

Really, do I think there's a problem here? Perhaps - I'd like to tie down exactly what the problem may be, rather than just saying it's broken. My initial opinion is that it's probably a combination of what people expect vs. what actually occurs and a slight tweak needed somewhere in the game.

I might even check Ben's beta almanac to see how often this is occurring in OOTP - so we have a common base to work from.

-Craig

sttfrk

04-16-2004, 04:03 PM

I think I remember seeing a study regarding home field advantage in baseball - apparently, it exposes itself at generally the same rate whether a team has had the same home stadium for 25+ years or if they just moved into the stadium that year. That wouldn't completely dispell the fact that teams built for their particular stadium have an advantage, but it would lend credence that other, more tangible factors play a greater role in home field advantage.

hmmm... if the team was identical the last year in the old stadium and first year in the new stadium and had roughly the same home win%, then I'm inclined to agree there are other factors...

I think there's a lot of research that needs to be made here before adding anything to OOTP...

Unrelated... can we lower the roster limit from 25 to say 20 and have the AI teams respect the new limit and more importantly handle it?!?

Ben E Lou

04-16-2004, 04:03 PM

Skydog, do you think perhaps we could add links to some of the better and most usefull OOTP add ons in the All Inclusive thread? I know there are roster sets, stadium sets, Databases and what not that really add a new dimension to the game but I really hate having to sift thru the other board.If someone will gather them into one post for me, consider it done. Someone needs to make one post entitled "OOTP Add-ons and Utilities," and I'll create a link to that thread.

Ben E Lou

04-16-2004, 04:06 PM

I might even check Ben's beta almanac to see how often this is occurring in OOTP - so we have a common base to work from.No can do. I already took it down, and have redone the "LEAGUESITE" folder as well. Sorry :( When I left my office today, though, I left the computer at my desk running a 50-year sim. I was already planning to upload that on Monday to take a look at stuff anyway.

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 04:07 PM

I think there's a lot of research that needs to be made here before adding anything to OOTP...

On that I entirely agree :) I'd rather have it take longer and done right rather something off the cuff.

Regarding rosters - not something I personally tested, but I think there is the option to change the size of the active roster. Since I didn't personally test, I can't really vouch for any adjustments made to the AI.

-Craig

Suicane75

04-16-2004, 04:16 PM

Still drafting and just noticed as I look for good bunters that there are no bunt ratings on the draft screen :( That is really not good. I NEED a 2 hole hitter!!!!!

General Mike

04-16-2004, 04:19 PM

Thanks for looking that up. Based on those numbers, you're right - it seems home field advantage isn't the answer.

BTW - regarding my earlier listing of possibilities as to why the lesser team wins as many playoff series as they do - I don't know for a fact the AI does anything differently during the playoffs. I know the engine stays the same, but I'm not sure the AI manages any differently. However, I am skeptical that this would be the answer.

Really, do I think there's a problem here? Perhaps - I'd like to tie down exactly what the problem may be, rather than just saying it's broken. My initial opinion is that it's probably a combination of what people expect vs. what actually occurs and a slight tweak needed somewhere in the game.

I might even check Ben's beta almanac to see how often this is occurring in OOTP - so we have a common base to work from.

-Craig

Craig, I don't know how much of a role this plays during the playoffs, but I'm pretty sure the computer ends up throwing their starters on 3 days rest all the time, where as in real life, most pitchers take a big hit when they have to throw on less than full rest. This may have been changed in OOTP6, but I know in past versions, the fact that you could get away with a 3 man rotation instead of having to use their 4th starter in the playoffs had a big effect.

-Mike

chrisj

04-16-2004, 04:21 PM

Although he's not pitching every two days like the guy mentioned earlier, I'm still seeing guys who can barely pitch 3 or 4 innings starting with the computer...

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 04:23 PM

Lynch,

Go back to the first page of this thread...the answer is there.

Thanks, I found it.

sabotai

04-16-2004, 04:28 PM

Page 3

....just wanted to be included...haven't loaded the game up yet.

HornedFrog Purple

04-16-2004, 04:33 PM

Ksyrup

04-16-2004, 04:36 PM

Argh, whenever you start a new league, it qualifies everyone for rookie records. I was hoping this would get fixed, because it has the ability to differentiate rookies on awards. I hate having to HM this stuff. :mad:
Yep, I mentioned this in SD's preview thread, and I think Craig mentioned something to Marcus about it. I didn't expect this to be fixed for the initial release, but hopefully in the first couple of patches...?

HornedFrog Purple

04-16-2004, 04:49 PM

One thing I like a lot is this new no-stars, no-ratings option. I am assuming the AI is getting to see them, but it's a challenge to go off stats and my sorry scout's scouting report.

SnowMan

04-16-2004, 04:50 PM

FYI: The stickware schedule creator seems to work great with OOTP6.

Eaglesfan27

04-16-2004, 04:53 PM

Anyone that can point me to Ankit's Stadium file or another good picture stadium file for OOTP6?

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 04:54 PM

How about some sort of notification if you claim a player on waivers and the other team pulls him back.

When a player is claimed, the date of the transaction would be nice in the player's history. Not just, 'player X claimed by y.'

HighandOutside

04-16-2004, 05:00 PM

Here a very good place for OOTP downloads/add-ons.....One more neophyte question, if you are starting a draft fictional league, should you start with all records on blank? Not sure why this option is confusing me, but it is.

http://www.ootpdownloadcenter.com/

RPI-Fan

04-16-2004, 05:01 PM

How do I choose what skin I want to use? I was playing along with "Wood-Maple", the game crashed, and then when I loaded back up I can't find how to switch skins.

Thanks,
rpi-fan

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 05:04 PM

When I put a player on waivers and he clears and I then release him. The release transaction is not on my transaction report.

Eaglesfan27

04-16-2004, 05:05 PM

GoldenEagle

04-16-2004, 05:17 PM

I found a potential bug. I messed around with some of the rating numbers and went back to the player screen and the starts were gone. I have never touched the star rating, so why would it do this?
Can anyone help me out here? I want my stars back.

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 05:18 PM

Can anyone help me out here? I want my stars back.

You can turn the stars on and off in the same place you pick your ratings.

League setup bottom left.

GoldenEagle

04-16-2004, 05:22 PM

You can turn the stars on and off in the same place you pick your ratings.

League setup bottom left.
My starts are turned on but they are not showing up.

RPI-Fan

04-16-2004, 05:26 PM

How do I choose what skin I want to use? I was playing along with "Wood-Maple", the game crashed, and then when I loaded back up I can't find how to switch skins.

Thanks,
rpi-fan
Nevermind, found it.:)

OOTP3 convertee here, if you couldn't tell.:)

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 05:38 PM

My starts are turned on but they are not showing up.

Do you mean "stars" or "starts"?

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 05:42 PM

Very Cool.

First baseman got hurt. Had to bring up a guy out of options but still promising at age 26. Couldn't get him back through waivers after my guy was ready to go.

Very Cool.

GoldenEagle

04-16-2004, 05:42 PM

Do you mean "stars" or "starts"?
Stars :)

GoldenEagle

04-16-2004, 05:51 PM

Dola - It seems the whole ratings thing messes up.

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 05:51 PM

Bug:

On the player development report when a pitcher gains or loses endurance - it shows the number as '2' no matter what he new number is.

RPI-Fan

04-16-2004, 05:57 PM

Bug: Game crashes in middle of simming for no apparanent reason. Happened 106 games into a season with a 1-league, 12-team association.

Also, got no playoff results the first year, and wasn't prompted for an amateur draft (yes, I have 10 rounds as chosen draft length).

Did I potentially do something wrong?

RPI-Fan

04-16-2004, 06:00 PM

Also, here's my general impression:

I had OOTP3 when it came out because I was in FOBL and wanted to try OOTP in general. I loved FOBL, but my (limited) attempts at single player failed miserably. I just couldn't get into it.

I preordered OOTP6 for a couple of reasons:

I have some money that I wasn't planning on spending for a while, and I hadn't recently bought any computer games (holding off on temptations such as CM 03/04). I also want to find a league to join, so I'd need OOTP6 of course.

Well, I still can't get myself immersed in single player mode. I want to sim quickly, but at the same time I feel like I don't get to know my team.

My general point is: I think OOTP6 will be very enjoyable for people who got any kind of enjoyment out of previous versions - however, I don't find myself any more immersesd than V3.

Can anyone help me find a way to get more immersed in single player mode?

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 06:09 PM

I can't get immersed quick simming, either. But...when I play out each game you really get to know each player's strength's and weaknesses. Probably not the answer you wanted to hear, but it works for me.

By the way, I saw your crash issue - tell me as much as you know about it as you can so we can isolate it. Were you quick simming? Did it show an error msg? Is the league salvageable? Was sound on or off?

RPI-Fan

04-16-2004, 06:16 PM

I was out running, and left the game to "Sim Season". I think the error was 9 - the league is salvageable to the last save point, that being the beginning of the season. The error said "Visual C++ Runtime Error 9" and then a bunch of gobble-dy-gook.

Sound was on, technically, but it was quicksimming so it shouldn't have mattered. I had all notifications off, so I don't think that was a cause. I'm guessing it might have been the all-star break since it was a little past midseason.

Sorry I don't have more details.:(

CraigSca

04-16-2004, 06:33 PM

No, no - that's good info! Thanks!

lynchjm24

04-16-2004, 06:37 PM

In the draft there are way to many 19 and 20 year old high school kids. Not enough 18 and none that are 17.

FBPro

04-16-2004, 06:37 PM

What the hell is the deal with the menus?

Toggle the 3D option in the game setup or config(don't remember which it is called).

ISiddiqui

04-16-2004, 06:55 PM

Looks pretty good, but I already got a bug. Imported an OOTP5 league and when I hit the button for 'Rule V Draft' the first year, it crashed to desktop.

Anyone see whether it works for any imported league?

FBPro

04-16-2004, 07:18 PM

Ok, I just ran an imported, fictional league all the way through FA, ammy and Rule V and now ST and went smooth as silk.

ISiddiqui

04-16-2004, 07:20 PM

Hmmm... I read somewhere that Markus recommends you go through the all the pre-season stuff and then import. Perhaps that is what I need to do.

yabanci

04-16-2004, 07:53 PM

it doesn't take long for me to get annoyed with OOTP. There seems to be no rhyme or reason with signing coaches and staff. They all just randomly sign with other teams. What is the trick? It certainly isn't offering them what they ask for. It isn't offering them 20% more than what they ask for. More years doesn't seem to help. Their preference seems irrellevant. There's no advice in the help file because there is no help file. What is the strategy supposed to be?

Kam

04-16-2004, 07:56 PM

Playing a game in a fictional league, computer pitcher gets hurt fielding the third out of the inning (5th). Check his player card and it says he will be out 5 weeks. Next inning, pitcher is still in the game and goes on to play 3 more innings (8th). After the game, his player card still says he will be out 5 weeks. Go to check League News. Article talks about the pitcher getting injured and leaving the game in the 5th inning. (and his stats were correct, they showed he pitched 8 innings.)

yabanci

04-16-2004, 08:00 PM

The setup gives you all sorts of options. You have the option to put in a salary cap, but what should it be? Who knows? There's no help file to give you any indication. Are you just supposed to pick a number out of a hat and throw it in there to see what happens?

When you set up a fictional league, why are all the market sizes, fan loyalty, and fan interest exactly the same? Shouldn't there be some variation? Shouldn't you be able to pick out real cities instead of having Milwaukee and New York automatically be the same sized markets? It's just silly.

yabanci

04-16-2004, 08:04 PM

When you create a fictional league, why does every computer controlled team play in generic "old league park"? Why can't you change this? Is variation not allowed?

ahbrady

04-16-2004, 08:09 PM

FBPro

04-16-2004, 08:09 PM

If you are playing "manager mode" then you can't change these things IF you aren't then you can.

ahbrady

04-16-2004, 08:11 PM

I didn't think of the manager mode. I don't play that mode, so I didn't know that.

yabanci

04-16-2004, 08:12 PM

They still have the option to change the number of rounds for the amateur draft. In previous versions you had to change the default. Should you do that here? Who knows? One would think not, but since you always had to before I'm assuming you still need to do it. What should it be? 5? 7? 15? A help file might be able to give guidance, but they don't give you a help file. Giving people options is good, but they need to explain what the options are and give some indication of what will happen if you choose one option over another.

Buccaneer

04-16-2004, 08:15 PM

Can anyone help me find a way to get more immersed in single player mode?
I can duplicate the 1970 leagues and import real (historical) players from Lahman 5.1 for full immersion. Nothing else matters. :D :D

yabanci

04-16-2004, 08:15 PM

What is the purpose of manager mode? To force you into using generic ballparks for every team and let you make babies? I really don't get the thinking here.

Axxon

04-16-2004, 08:16 PM

I'm gettting the idea that yabanci would have prefered more, I mean any, documentation come with the game. :)

yabanci

04-16-2004, 08:21 PM

After starting a fictional league and going through the draft, it will ask you if you want to change the market sizes to be adjusted to payroll. That will change the market size, fan loyalty, and fan interest. You also can change the park of computer controlled teams. Go into their team setup page and click on the ballpark.

If I understand this correctly, whichever team selects the most expensive players is given the biggest market size? It doesn't seem very logical to me. Market size data is readily available. Why don't they have it in the game? Look at FOF -- it's all there, just about every city in the US. Determining market size based on salaries of players selected in the initial fantasy draft seems awfully silly. How is weather for the different teams determined? I hope it's not dependent on which players you draft too.

Axxon

04-16-2004, 08:30 PM

If I understand this correctly, whichever team selects the most expensive players is given the biggest market size? It doesn't seem very logical to me. Market size data is readily available. Why don't they have it in the game? Look at FOF -- it's all there, just about every city in the US. Determining market size based on salaries of players selected in the initial fantasy draft seems awfully silly. How is weather for the different teams determined? I hope it's not dependent on which players you draft too.

It is. The game faithfully models the cutting edge DustyBaker Theory of weather pattern development.

John Galt

04-16-2004, 08:50 PM

I still see "Clutch Performance" on a player's card!?!?!?! I assume this is disabled with the new stat engine (which I'm using), but it is disconcerting to see.

ahbrady

04-16-2004, 08:58 PM

Yabanci, you're such an OOTP fanboy.

MizzouRah

04-16-2004, 09:01 PM

What, I'm driving all over the place today and I come home to a release? :)

This did catch my eye from RPI-FAN:

Well, I still can't get myself immersed in single player mode. I want to sim quickly, but at the same time I feel like I don't get to know my team.

My general point is: I think OOTP6 will be very enjoyable for people who got any kind of enjoyment out of previous versions - however, I don't find myself any more immersesd than V3.

Can anyone help me find a way to get more immersed in single player mode?
I don't like the sound of this.

Also, do the stadiums, logos, cato's utility, etc.. work with v6?

Thanks,

Todd

chrisj

04-16-2004, 09:03 PM

Also, do the stadiums, logos, cato's utility, etc.. work with v6?

Stadiums and logos should work, but Cato will have to update his utility (as well Commish Joe update his exporter).

yabanci

04-16-2004, 09:04 PM

Having started over, I'm now trying to decide whether I want "blank records" or "default records." I know what I'll get with blank records, but the default records are like a mystery surprise dessert. What exactly will I get if I go with "default records"?

Buccaneer

04-16-2004, 09:09 PM

What, I'm driving all over the place today and I come home to a release? :)

This did catch my eye from RPI-FAN:

[snip]

I don't like the sound of this.

Todd
Why? It has always been that way - just like every single sports text sims out there - some find the game fun, some don't for many reasons. For example, I find FOF SP to be the least immersive text sim I have ever played but OOTP4 and 5 to be the most immersive. Others are just the opposite, which is understandable. Every one who has an interest must determine whether a game connects or not. With OOTP, it can be current real players or online leagues only or historical eras (that's where I only connect) or PbP or modeling a softball league or whatever. The good thing is that the game gives many options for many of us to find that connection unlike some other games (text sims or strategy games) that says play it my way or don't play it all.

ahbrady

04-16-2004, 09:10 PM

I would think that "default records" would be the actual MLB records.

CentralMassHokie

04-16-2004, 09:14 PM

Is there any way to start a league with the current MLB setup (cities/stadiums/affiliates), but with fictional players?

It seems like an awful pain to go through and add affiliates for each of the teams, but then again, I've been through league creation like 3 times.

For instance, don't accidentally name your league the same as an existing league. You'll get a nice "you already have a league by that name" and then get unceremoniously booted out of league creation, losing all of your changes.

And editing city/team names is ridiculous. Standard windows controls exist for a reason, I don't understand why OOTP still refuses to use them.

RPI-Fan

04-16-2004, 09:16 PM

Why? It has always been that way - just like every single sports text sims out there - some find the game fun, some don't for many reasons. For example, I find FOF SP to be the least immersive text sim I have ever played but OOTP4 and 5 to be the most immersive. Others are just the opposite, which is understandable. Every one who has an interest must determine whether a game connects or not. With OOTP, it can be current real players or online leagues only or historical eras (that's where I only connect) or PbP or modeling a softball league or whatever. The good thing is that the game gives many options for many of us to find that connection unlike some other games (text sims or strategy games) that says play it my way or don't play it all.
Yea', I wasn't complaining or anything. It's just not my cup of tea. For people who are patient (and don't mind a lot of mouseclicks;)) the game could be very, very fun. However, I like to be able to move along at a brisk pace in single player mode, and that just doesn't seem feasible to me with OOTP. I mean, I can quicksim, but then I don't know my team at all.

I'll stick with multiplayer, I think, and still get my $25 worth out of the game.

As for single player, maybe next time.

MizzouRah

04-16-2004, 09:17 PM

Why? It has always been that way - just like every single sports text sims out there - some find the game fun, some don't for many reasons. For example, I find FOF SP to be the least immersive text sim I have ever played but OOTP4 and 5 to be the most immersive. Others are just the opposite, which is understandable. Every one who has an interest must determine whether a game connects or not. With OOTP, it can be current real players or online leagues only or historical eras (that's where I only connect) or PbP or modeling a softball league or whatever. The good thing is that the game gives many options for many of us to find that connection unlike some other games (text sims or strategy games) that says play it my way or don't play it all.
Well, I find ootp5 immersive.. and I want v6 to be much more immersive than v5, if it's basically the same.. well, I don't know? <scratches head>

Boy, people are quit to bitch at me this week. :D

Todd

General Mike

04-16-2004, 09:19 PM

Is there any way to start a league with the current MLB setup (cities/stadiums/affiliates), but with fictional players?

If you create a custom league, with 2 leagues and 3 divisions, by default the cities you get will be the ML cities. Im not sure if the minor league team names would be the same tho.

HornedFrog Purple

04-16-2004, 09:22 PM

heh one of my players is out for 6 weeks having surgery for back spasms

FBPro

04-16-2004, 09:23 PM

CentralMassHokie

04-16-2004, 09:26 PM

Just begin a "standard" league.

Except a standard league comes with the "real" players. No, they aren't named Albert Pujols and Pedro Martinez, but that's who they are.

I want a standard league with a fictional player file. I don't think that's possible right off the bat.

Still, my biggest gripe is those horrible text entry boxes. I honestly don't know how those get through testing. There *has* to be a better edit box available.

sabotai

04-16-2004, 09:39 PM

I want a standard league with a fictional player file. I don't think that's possible right off the bat.

I think the default setup for creating a Custom League is the MLB setup (I would think it is, anyway). Just go to Custom League, Set it to create fictional players, and wha-la.

Ksyrup

04-16-2004, 09:44 PM

OK, if I'm playing with ability ratings not showing, and talent ratings at 2-8, when I go to the amateur draft, what are the ratings I am being shown? They appear to be on a 1-10 scale. Is this talent ratings? Why aren't they on a 2-8 scale, or whatever scale I've chosen?

CentralMassHokie

04-16-2004, 09:51 PM

I think the default setup for creating a Custom League is the MLB setup (I would think it is, anyway). Just go to Custom League, Set it to create fictional players, and wha-la.

But lacking the team stadiums and affiliates. I know it's minor stuff, but bleh. It's just too much typing with that crappy text entry widget.

That being said, I'm looking at my roster now. Time to start building my team.

Ksyrup

04-16-2004, 10:01 PM

Big difference in sim speed without my anti-virus protection enabled...

2 league, 20 teams, with anti-virus enabled - 25 minutes; without - 11 minutes.

General Mike

04-16-2004, 10:50 PM

But lacking the team stadiums and affiliates. I know it's minor stuff, but bleh. It's just too much typing with that crappy text entry widget.

That being said, I'm looking at my roster now. Time to start building my team.
copy park.dat and parkconfig.dat from one league to another. :eek:

Huckleberry

04-17-2004, 12:43 AM

Could we get one character added to the Playoff Round names? "League Championship Serie" still doesn't look right.

kingnebwsu

04-17-2004, 01:01 AM

Craig, I don't know how much of a role this plays during the playoffs, but I'm pretty sure the computer ends up throwing their starters on 3 days rest all the time, where as in real life, most pitchers take a big hit when they have to throw on less than full rest. This may have been changed in OOTP6, but I know in past versions, the fact that you could get away with a 3 man rotation instead of having to use their 4th starter in the playoffs had a big effect.

-Mike

This could end up being part of the problem. I saw it all this time and it never really registered as a "problem" to me. I just accepted it as part of the game. But yes, starting the best pitchers on 3 days of rest could statistically alter the outcome, in some cases by a lot.

kingnebwsu

04-17-2004, 01:13 AM

I just did a 20-year study on OOTP 6. I recorded the records of the two teams in the world series, and also how the team with the best overall record did in the playoffs. Here are the results:

91-71 over 90-72 (106-56 out in WC)
92-70 over 84-78 (102-60 out in LCS)
99-63 over 90-72 (99-63 won WS)
87-75 over 87-76 (90-72's out in WC)
91-72 over 91-71 (92-70's out in WC)
88-74 over 90-72 (91-71's out in WC)
94-68 over 87-75 (95-67 out in LCS)
92-70 over 90-72 (94-68 out in WC)
85-77 over 84-78 (93-69 out in LCS)
97-65 over 87-75 (97-65 won WS)
92-70 over 90-72 (95-67 out in LCS)
89-73 over 100-62 (100-62 out in WS)
86-76 over 89-73 (100-62 out in WC (SWEPT!))
84-78 over 88-75 (95-67 out in WC)
96-66 over 102-60 (102-60 out in WS) (100-62 also swept in WC)
82-80 over 87-75 (109-53 out in WC to 82-80)
92-70 over 88-74 (95-67 out in LCS)
87-75 over 87-75 (94-68 out in WC)
89-73 over 91-71 (96-66 out in LCS, 81-81 team swept 92-70 in WC)
104-58 over 101-61 (104-58 won WS)

In twenty years, of the 23 teams with/tied for the best overall record:

THREE teams with the best overall record won the world series.
TWELVE teams lost in the wild-card round
SIX teams lost in the LCS
TWO teams lost in the World Series

Other interesting notes from the 23 teams with/tied for the best overall record:

ONE 100-win team won the World Series
THREE 100-win teams lost in the wild-card round

I think this moderate sample proves that the postseason results are definitely off. As I play OOTP 6, I'll try and figure out what is causing the problem (if I don't throw it out the window first when my 110-win team gets swept out of the WC round). This is just a quick-sim I did while I was at work. It'll be even worse once I get my 100+ win teams going every year...and watching them lose...

Schedule Junkie

04-17-2004, 01:26 AM

Where do I get that schedule generator? My team is off on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday one week. :mad:
My first post here, and a timely one it seems, as my schedule expertise is needed. :D

If you think that kind of schedule is weird, you ought to see the REAL major league original schedules from the 1960's and earlier, particularly the schedules from the 16 team MLB era. They have things FAR more weird in them than what you've mentioned, and those were the ACTUAL schedules planned for the seasons.

I should know this, as I gathered ALL of the real major league schedules and digitized the lot of them. The results of my efforts have just recently started appearing on the Retrosheet web site.

Do a search on Stickware - it's an excellent utility that writes directly into OOTP format.
Or use the schedule importer and use real schedules. Unfortunately, it seems that the importer is not working properly yet. However, it has finally been included in the game, so hopefully any problems with it will get sorted out soon.

Schedule Junkie

04-17-2004, 01:43 AM

I'd hate to see a home field advantage factor added. If anything, I'd rather see the AI teams build their teams with some regard to their home stadium. This, more than anything, would give a "home field" advantage and should translate to a higher home field winning percentage in both the regular season and playoffs.

To artificially add a home field advantage would drastically reduce realism IMO.
I must strongly disagree here. The idea that tailoring a team to its home park is the sole reason for a team to do better at home is incorrect. There must be far more influences at work for the numbers to be produced that MLB has produced over the years.

Consider this fact: from 1901-2002, a full 83% of all of those major league teams finished the season with a better winning percentage at home than it had on the road. That's four out of five teams over 102 seasons. And this is across teams of all types of overall winning percentages.

I can guarantee you if you ran a 100 year sim in OOTP and added up the numbers of teams finishing better at home as compared to those finishing better on the road, you won't find anything anywhere near the real MLB figure of 83%.

***

About the playoff results problem, I think a possible factor is being overlooked. All the sim results posted are from 3 division leagues playing (presumably) the current MLB style of divisionally weighted schedule. If so, then it is this schedule which can artificially inflate a team's W-L record. If it happens to play in a small, weak division then its win total will be helped quite nicely over a team who played in a division full of tough opponents. The current MLB schedules are horrid affairs, with teams even in the same division playing the same opponents an unequal number of times thanks to interleague play and the unbalanced divisional structures between the leagues. Using them as a basis for good comparisons between the W-L records between opponents is, I would submit, a flawed premise.

I would suggest this alternative to remove the possibility of scheduling issues affecting the W-L records: run a long term sim using two leagues each split into two 6 team divisions playing the same schedule format used by MLB during its time with this alignment. Doing this will eliminate much of the possibly distortions introduced by the majors' current scheduling system and should produce a much more fair study of any possible post-season resolution problems.

Shkspr

04-17-2004, 02:22 AM

Hey, except for that whole "game crashes about halfway into the season" bug I keep experiencing, this game'd be pretty fun. :)

Raven

04-17-2004, 03:40 AM

Is anyone else a little dissapointed that this looks like the same girl with a new dress?

The interface is exactly the same. They changed the skin a little bit, but didn't add anything new to "toy with". All the team options and player options, are a photocopy of v5.

You still get the exact same stats menus. From the main roster screen, why can't you see L/R splits? All we get is L/R Avg and OPS, and overall stats. When setting my lineups, it would be nice if I could see complete vs LHP/RHP splits including ABs, Hs, 2Bs, HRs, Ks etc without having to go through each player, or sort through a clunky HTML page.

It would also be nice to see entire league databases by ratings. ie Who are considered the best power hitters in the league? Top 5 in stuff? Fastest runners? I know this is where the scouts should come in to play, but couldn't these be added and just call them 3rd party companies ratings (ala ESPN or something similar)?

Why do you have to go to the trade screen to search for players by ratings? What do you do when the trade deadline has passed, and you get locked out of there? (I dont know if this has been fixed in v6, but it was the case in v5)

Just some thoughts.

SackAttack

04-17-2004, 03:57 AM

With my team on the wrong end of an 18-4 blowout, the AI brings my closer in for the 9th inning.

That's not good.

Ben E Lou

04-17-2004, 03:58 AM

Raven:

I beg to differ. I'd say it is a different girl, but with the same hair color and eyes and wearing the same dress. When you first look at her, you think she's the same chick you went out with last week, but she isn't. :p What I mean by that is that on the surface (interface/look) things are very similar to OOTP5. I'm finding that underneath things are quite different though.

Ben E Lou

04-17-2004, 04:01 AM

Are star ratings working differently? I have a 2.0 blue-star SP who is listed as the #94 prospect in the nation.

Ben E Lou

04-17-2004, 04:03 AM

Dola: Actually it looks like starting pitching prospects are weighted more highly than other positions. I'd be curious for Craig to comment if this was an intentional change.

kingnebwsu

04-17-2004, 04:05 AM

I would suggest this alternative to remove the possibility of scheduling issues affecting the W-L records: run a long term sim using two leagues each split into two 6 team divisions playing the same schedule format used by MLB during its time with this alignment. Doing this will eliminate much of the possibly distortions introduced by the majors' current scheduling system and should produce a much more fair study of any possible post-season resolution problems.

Fair enough, I just started this. I got plans all-day Saturday, so the 100 year sim should be done by Sat. night when I go to play again. It probably will take me a bit to analyze all of the data though :)

Schedule Junkie

04-17-2004, 04:35 AM

Sounds like it'll be interesting. Just don't use an OOTP-generated schedule for your league, because it likely won't have the proper setup of matches between the opponents. Unfortunately, while I have schedule files on hand that are appropriate for this league setup, the format is not compatible at present with OOTP's schedule importer. That leaves manual entry, and that is a long and tedious affair.

You also have to choose between either a best-of-5 series length for the LCS or a best-of-7. I'd suggest splitting the difference and do the first 50 years with a best-of-5 and then the following 50 years with a best-of-7. It might be interesting to see if the shorter series produces more upsets on average.

Chief Rum

04-17-2004, 04:35 AM

Anyone else getting duration for pitchers just disappearing? It's really screwing with the single-player universe I am running.

I know a problem was pointed out about OOTP5 leagues being converted to OOTP6 and with starters needing to be set to SP roles, but I haven't seen anything yet about OOTP6 original leagues losing duration. :(

BTW, I confirmed it's both pitchers that were generated at the beginning (fictional, not default) and newly drafted players as well.

CR

Ksyrup

04-17-2004, 07:53 AM

There are definitely way too many guys starting 36-40 games a year on the default settings.

Tekneek

04-17-2004, 08:48 AM

I think this moderate sample proves that the postseason results are definitely off. As I play OOTP 6, I'll try and figure out what is causing the problem (if I don't throw it out the window first when my 110-win team gets swept out of the WC round). This is just a quick-sim I did while I was at work. It'll be even worse once I get my 100+ win teams going every year...and watching them lose...

Since the creation of the Divisional Series (aka "Wild Card Round"), the MLB team with the best regular season record has done this :

2003 - 2 teams tied (101-61) - 1 lost in Divisional Series, 1 lost in World Series
2002 - (103-58) - Lost in Divisional Series
2001 - (116-46) - Lost in ALCS
2000 - (97-65) - Lost in Divisional Series
1999 - (103-59) - Lost in World Series
1998 - (114-48) - Won World Series
1997 - (101-61) - Lost in NLCS
1996 - (99-62) - Lost in Divisional Series
1995 - (100-44) - Lost in World Series

Ok. 10 teams. 4 of them did make it to the World Series. The same number lost out in the Wild Card round.

Since the institution of the "Divisional Series", there have been 15 teams with more than 100 wins in a season. Of those, only 1 of them managed to win the World Series.

If you are doing anything like capping cash, setting salary caps, and any other artificial financial limitations, you should expect the top teams to face stiffer competition in a series (IMHO). While they hold an advantage in the marathon of the regular season, the teams may be tighter in a post-season series. After looking at the MLB data, I don't have as much of a problem with your twenty season sample as you seem to.

Tekneek

04-17-2004, 08:49 AM

There are definitely way too many guys starting 36-40 games a year on the default settings.

I ran 1901 twice. The first year one guy got 63 starts. The next time I ran it there was not an unusually high number of starts across the entire league. I made no adjustments to any settings, and pulled from the same DB.

Bonegavel

04-17-2004, 09:09 AM

No, no. Will *generally* win. I've never argued that it always happens that way - simply that the underdog wins much less frequently in "real life" than it seems to in OOTP, and if we're looking for an accurate simulation of the sport, then that needs to be looked at.

I'm not suggesting the underdog should never win, but I AM suggesting that there are just a few too many examples in OOTP of teams that should be dominant becoming the Atlanta Braves of their particular era.I hate doing it but, *sigh*. You cannot see from my statement of 7/34 that of course it meant the underdog can sometimes win?

Obviously, IRL there is a correlation between having a 10+ record and winning. In this version, it appears that the *best* team is winning (this will probably cause you another question mark) or, at least, the team that uses the right line-ups.

IOW, it seems that IRL, the coaches will obviously pull out only their Best-and-brightest for the playoffs even going as far to play a great pitcher more than once during the series. If OOTP uses the same algorithms in the playoffs and the regular season (as opposed to retooling to use only the best pitching staff, pushing if need be, etc.) i can see how things might be skewed or seem random.

chrisj

04-17-2004, 09:40 AM

It would also be nice to see entire league databases by ratings. ie Who are considered the best power hitters in the league? Top 5 in stuff? Fastest runners? I know this is where the scouts should come in to play, but couldn't these be added and just call them 3rd party companies ratings (ala ESPN or something similar)

You can do that - and have been since OOTP5. :)

Go into the "Almanac", then click on "Display all players of league". Should be able to find what you are looking for there.

kingnebwsu

04-17-2004, 11:52 AM

One helluva game...I guess...

4/15/2044, 326 Ks, Nicholas Mahlum (ORL), 196.1 IP, 7 HA, 3 ER, 2 BB
4/15/2044, 462 Ks, Jorge Orozco (MIN), 198.0 IP, 6 HA, 1 ER, 1 BB

The game lasts almost 200 freakin' innings and they both only give up 4 runs TOTAL?!?!? WTF?!?!?!? I'm in 2045, otherwise I'd have the box score ;) A big error has definitely occurred though. The game happened with AB's for everyone and everything. Some of the MIN guys had 72 AB's that game. Scary stuff.

I'm sure that game will be on ESPN Classic forever ;)

Tekneek

04-17-2004, 11:59 AM

198 innings? How do you deal with that? Does Markus need to put in a rule that if the teams are still even after, say, 50 innings, somebody gets a free run and its over? ;)

HornedFrog Purple

04-17-2004, 12:01 PM

4/15/2044, 462 Ks, Jesse Orosco (MIN), 198.0 IP, 6 HA, 1 ER, 1 BB

Wow... what is he, 98 years old?

HornedFrog Purple

04-17-2004, 12:07 PM

if you take an average of 3 hours per 9 innings, that game took 2 days and 18 hours of nonstop baseball :D

GoSeahawks

04-17-2004, 12:13 PM

Schedule Junkie,

Are you LeGrande Orange over at the OOTP boards?

Carligula

04-17-2004, 12:23 PM

With my team on the wrong end of an 18-4 blowout, the AI brings my closer in for the 9th inning.

That's not good.

I don't have the game and I'm not getting it, but that's not totally unreasonable. Teams do that on occasion to get the closer some work if he hasn't pitched in a while... some of Eddie Guardado's appearances last season:

4/20, 9th inning of an 8-2 loss
6/1, 9th inning of a 9-5 loss
7/13, 9th inning of an 8-3 loss

OTOH, if your closer had pitched recently, I'd call that a problem...

HighandOutside

04-17-2004, 12:31 PM

OK, I was about to play the 5th game of my season against the White Sox and I noticed they were starting a tired pitcher. The guy (Arellano) had started the first game of the season for them, 4 days ago, and threw 104 pitches. I wonder to myself, "self, why aren't they starting their 5th starter who should be rested?". Well, I look at the White Sox roster and their 5th starter (Brown) is tired..He is said to have thrown 114 pitches in the opener..the same game that Arellano started. Oddly, Brown is not recorded as having pitched in that game according to the box score. Nor, do this his personal stats show any innings pitched. Moreover, Arellano is not Chi's #1 starter, so he should not have started the opener to begin with...odd. Not sure if this is a bug or what, but the White Sox do not have a rested starter to pitch the 5th game of the season..(also, Chi. has made no trades thus far, so that is not the issue.)

Let me note. I did Reset this league once, 2 games into the season. However, the same issue has not occured with my pitchers (Tigers)

Tekneek

04-17-2004, 12:37 PM

Let me note. I did Reset this league once, 2 games into the season. However, the same issue has not occured with my pitchers (Tigers)

I have not seen this exact issue, but similar sorts of oddities when I have "reset" a league that had already started playing (in OOTP5, and even OOTP4). While they seem to have 'reset' to the beginning of the season, apparently not all of the players got the memo and some are tired from the phantom games. If I think I may need to reset to the beginning of a season, I've found it more reliable to 'backup' the unstarted season and use that to restore from (rather than doing a reset).

HighandOutside

04-17-2004, 12:38 PM

this is odd, the Chicago Cubs have the same issue (with a few slight differences). They were about to ignore their 5th starter and start their tired number 1 starter. This time, the 5th starter was not tired and they had started their number 1 guy in the opener. All the other teams in the league are using their well rested number 5 starter for the 5th game of the season.

HighandOutside

04-17-2004, 12:40 PM

Thanks Tekneek, by using the editor I have straightened these two teams out..so I hope all runs smoothly from here.

Tekneek

04-17-2004, 01:09 PM

korme

04-17-2004, 01:22 PM

Great discussion guys, this thread can provide a ton for Markus and Co. ton work with.

HighandOutside

04-17-2004, 01:30 PM

Tekneek,

All the teams have the same rotation rule. I've edited the problems with the Chicago teams and hopefully its just a hiccup from resetting the league. Got to love that they made this game so easy to edit.

Ben E Lou

04-17-2004, 01:34 PM

Bump...un-stick....archived.

Ksyrup

04-17-2004, 01:47 PM

I had my first crash. I left the game to sim for the morning and afternoon, and when I got back, it had shut down on August 9, 2018 (when I left, it was in 2009). I'm pretty sure Bud Selig was no longer the commish, so it wasn't a work stoppage. The standings were unaffected, but the player stats were missing 100 or so ABs by the end of the season when I ran the rest of the sim. The league leaders all had in the mid-400's for ABs. Definitely a bummer.

Tekneek

04-17-2004, 01:54 PM

I left the game to sim for the morning and afternoon, and when I got back, it had shut down on August 9, 2018 (when I left, it was in 2009).

I seem to have this problem with any sim that I leave running like that. It always crashes and screws something up to the point that it is useless.

General Mike

04-17-2004, 02:22 PM

I seem to have this problem with any sim that I leave running like that. It always crashes and screws something up to the point that it is useless.
Me 3. If my screensaver comes up, I get hosed. :(

Chief Rum

04-17-2004, 02:33 PM

Ditto on the screensaver problems. I would turn that off if I were you guys.

Did anyone see my problems with pitcher durability? Just wondering if this has already been encountered and dealt with somehow.

CR

SackAttack

04-17-2004, 02:47 PM

I don't have the game and I'm not getting it, but that's not totally unreasonable. Teams do that on occasion to get the closer some work if he hasn't pitched in a while... some of Eddie Guardado's appearances last season:

4/20, 9th inning of an 8-2 loss
6/1, 9th inning of a 9-5 loss
7/13, 9th inning of an 8-3 loss

OTOH, if your closer had pitched recently, I'd call that a problem...

He had just worked 2 innings the previous game: the 9th, during which he gave up 2 homers, and the 10th. On top of that, it was the 3rd game of the season. So you'd think it'd be his day off, but nope.

Ksyrup

04-17-2004, 02:50 PM

I don't use screensavers, so that couldn't be what caused my crash.

Schedule Junkie

04-17-2004, 03:37 PM

Schedule Junkie, are you LeGrande Orange over at the OOTP boards? Why yes, yes I am. Would that be bad? :D

I picked the LGO nickname for the OOTP boards a couple of years ago, before I got interested in the whole subject of baseball schedules. The nick I used for here just seems to make more sense given the acquired interest. :D

Jon

04-17-2004, 03:39 PM

My game crashed for the first time prior to the 2005 offseason when I pressed the sign coaches/scout option.

HornedFrog Purple

04-17-2004, 04:21 PM

Some kind of glitch...

I successfully claimed my first player off waivers, and received an email that said I got the player and I signed him. Anyways the email had an "open trade window" on it so I clicked it and it had a random player (not the player I claimed off waivers) with no team attached wanting cash.

I just ignored it but it was kind of goofy.

Robbiero67

04-17-2004, 04:41 PM

Ok..I am still having a great deal of trouble reading the text throughout the software's interface. I disabled the 3D option, but it didn't help much. The type is very blurry and just seems poorly done, does anyone know why this may be? Is there anything I can do to fix it? Is anyone else having the same issue?

Thanks...

Tekneek

04-17-2004, 04:44 PM

The type is very blurry and just seems poorly done, does anyone know why this may be? Is there anything I can do to fix it? Is anyone else having the same issue?

I did not have this problem. I suspect some of the following :

(1) resolution set too high for your monitor
(2) bad monitor
(3) bad eyes (undetected vision impairment)

There may be something else, but one of those three has always been the culprit when I've had trouble with text on the screen.

Robbiero67

04-17-2004, 04:57 PM

1) Resolution is set at lowest poss. 800x600, so I don't think thats it. What do you have your's set at Tek?

2) The monitor is relatively new (DELL 17" Desktop) that has no issues reading other text.

3) I don't have the best eyesight, but I can read everything else on my computer without any problems whatsoever, so I'm pretty sure thats not it either...

I appreciate the help, but I really don't think it is one of the aforementioned issues (unless my res is way out of whack)...really curious to see if anyone else has had any similar issues?

HeavyReign

04-17-2004, 05:01 PM

Robbiero67

04-17-2004, 05:12 PM

Great, thanks for the help guys, turns out it was the Res...

Buccaneer

04-17-2004, 07:26 PM

Kind of reminds me of the some of the complaints about FOF4. Most of the changes were under the hood, as Jim declared, to make it a better game. In OOTP, this was by far the biggest complaint about the series since I first learned about this game in v.3. So with v.6 you got what you wanted and still complaining? ;)

From my reading of things, the complaint are very picayune (tm - SkyDog) compared to those after v.4 and v.5.

HornedFrog Purple

04-17-2004, 07:33 PM

well people who want things fixed under the hood always have to wait for the pretty pictures, cuter interface and other assorted fluff people to get their whining out of the way. ;)

RPI-Fan

04-17-2004, 07:33 PM

Bucc: I completely disagree re: FOF4.

FOF4 completely redid the interface, and did a pretty good job of it. There didn't seem to be many "system" changes - drafting and FA were exactly the same.

Marmel

04-17-2004, 07:50 PM

Schmidty

04-17-2004, 08:00 PM

There are under the hood changes, however I don't see them as bettering the game. That is my main beef with the game (and series in general).

How can you make such a decision after only having the game for a day or so? Have you been able to definitively test what the changes are and how they affect the game? If not, then how can you say that they don't better the game and that you have a beef with it? I'm certainly not a fanboy since I don't give a shit, but your dislike of this version of OOTP seems automatic and irrational.

Edit: Carp suck balls.

Edit: Ahhh, so the larger the number, the larger the text.......

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 12:19 AM

Anyone noticing that relievers are getting into a few too many games, in terms of the league leaders? I've just simmed from 2004 to 2018 (with no crashes so far this time), and the league leaders in games pitched are 110 and 105 in each league. The guy with 110 never had quite that many in another season, but that one season was interesting - 133 IP and no starts, but with a 15-7 record and 4 saves (maybe he was the beneficiary of one of those low-endurance starters - I'll have to check that year's almanac). The guy with 105 games has pitched in 101, 95, and 89 games in other years.

This kind of thing should be rare. However, I just looked through the current rosters and found 3 guys over 100 appearances, with another 10-15 over 90. One team had 5 guys with 80+ appearances!

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 12:47 AM

OK, I'm seeing some definite cause for concern here...

Teams with relievers pitching 80+ games are doing so because of the starter/low endurance issue. I've looked at a couple of these teams with pitchers appearing in at least 100 games, and they got something in common - at least one guy who starts a bunch of games, but averages 5 innings or less per start.

Looking at the 2018 season - the team with 5 guys with 80+ appearances - I found one guy who underscores the problem:

<TABLE class=s0><TBODY><TR class=g><TD class=s1>Year</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>GS</TD><TD>W</TD><TD>L</TD><TD>SV</TD><TD>ERA</TD><TD>IP</TD><TD>HA</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>ER</TD><TD>BB</TD><TD>K</TD><TD>CG</TD><TD>SHO</TD><TD>WHIP</TD><TD class=s3>Teams</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2004</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.95</TD><TD>80.0</TD><TD>89</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>15</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.30</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2005</TD><TD>24</TD><TD>14</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.26</TD><TD>113.1</TD><TD>114</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>26</TD><TD>66</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.24</TD><TD class=s3>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2006</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.84</TD><TD>250.1</TD><TD>238</TD><TD>93</TD><TD>79</TD><TD>62</TD><TD>150</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>1.20</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC,L2</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2007</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.96</TD><TD>229.1</TD><TD>236</TD><TD>111</TD><TD>101</TD><TD>55</TD><TD>143</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.27</TD><TD class=s3>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2008</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.30</TD><TD>184.0</TD><TD>199</TD><TD>97</TD><TD>88</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>104</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.30</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2009</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.27</TD><TD>206.1</TD><TD>236</TD><TD>110</TD><TD>98</TD><TD>32</TD><TD>127</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.30</TD><TD class=s3>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2010</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.07</TD><TD>196.2</TD><TD>200</TD><TD>94</TD><TD>89</TD><TD>54</TD><TD>121</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.29</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2011</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>5.42</TD><TD>113.0</TD><TD>138</TD><TD>71</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>26</TD><TD>59</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.45</TD><TD class=s3>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2012</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.33</TD><TD>116.1</TD><TD>130</TD><TD>60</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>26</TD><TD>60</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.34</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2013</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>24</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3.90</TD><TD>152.1</TD><TD>151</TD><TD>69</TD><TD>66</TD><TD>40</TD><TD>105</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.25</TD><TD class=s3>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2014</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.05</TD><TD>109.1</TD><TD>113</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>28</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.29</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2015</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.63</TD><TD>153.2</TD><TD>156</TD><TD>70</TD><TD>62</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>80</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1.28</TD><TD class=s3>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2016</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.16</TD><TD>156.2</TD><TD>143</TD><TD>62</TD><TD>55</TD><TD>32</TD><TD>87</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.12</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2017</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.81</TD><TD>153.2</TD><TD>151</TD><TD>70</TD><TD>65</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>58</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.21</TD><TD class=s3>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2018</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.50</TD><TD>139.0</TD><TD>136</TD><TD>57</TD><TD>54</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>88</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.12</TD><TD class=s3_2>OC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>Total</TD><TD>525</TD><TD>473</TD><TD>74</TD><TD>146</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3.83</TD><TD>2354.0</TD><TD>2430</TD><TD>1106</TD><TD>1003</TD><TD>532</TD><TD>1350</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>1.26</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

11 years of "normal" starting pitcher stats (although it appears he was injured quite frequently), and then 5 years of a high number of starts, but low number of innings pitched. And his record over those 5 years...3-54, with a mid-3 ERA??? :eek:

This must be fixed before I put a significant amount of time into this game. It's got to be caused by the move from separate endurance ratings to one endurance rating. Guys are losing endurance but still have good stuff, and the AI isn't recognizing the difference between a starter with decreased endurance and a reliever.

Not sure what the answer is, as I'm not entirely sure I see many pitchers IRL who maintain above-average stuff, yet somehow lose the ability to pitch 6 innings per start, and then are converted to reliever. It seems to me that some guys are converted to reliever because of injury concerns - Smoltz, Dreifort - but most guys who become relievers after being starters are converted because they can't pitch effectively for 5-6 innings anymore - it's related more to their ability than their endurance.

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 12:58 AM

BTW, I don't know what's going on with the scrollbar thingy in my previous post, but if anyone can post those numbers so that they all fit on the screen, I'd appreciate it.

That's enough for one night, I'm going to...watch the end of the Calgary/Vancouver game!

EDIT: I think I fixed it.

kingnebwsu

04-18-2004, 02:23 AM

Are offensive numbers too high? Scrolling through teams' averages and seeing lots of .280's and up kind of worried me. (Shrug) maybe I'm wrong.

Z²+

04-18-2004, 03:06 AM

This is my first version of the game, maybe someone can help explain this to me. I used the CBL rosters and took over the Pirates. On my financial report screen, it tells me I have about 2 million in cash. Lower on the screen, it tells me I have 41 million for free agents and 32 for extensions. I'm not understanding this...where is all that extra money for FA/EXT coming from if I only have 2 million in cash?

Thanks in advance :)

TazFTW

04-18-2004, 04:18 AM

From the OOTP Boards,

Per Markus..

Here is the formula for every case:

Extensions:

$$ left = [Last year marketing revenue + Last year Gate revenue + This year TV contract + Cash] - [salary of players with 2 or more years left on their contract + extensions signed + salary of coaches]

Free agent period:

$$ left = [Last year marketing revenue + Last year Gate revenue + This year TV contract + Cash] - [salary of players on the team + salary of players that have a contract offer + salary of coaches]

Signing free agents during season:

$$ left = [Last year marketing revenue + Last year Gate revenue + This year TV contract + Cash] - [salary of players on the team + salary of coaches]

Hope that helps!

Playoff revenue is not used, it only influences your cash when proceeding to the next season.

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 09:24 AM

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 09:57 AM

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 09:58 AM

<TABLE class=overall><TBODY><TR><TD class=empty><TABLE class=s0><TBODY><TR class=g2><TD class=s5>Career Pitching Stats

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=empty><TABLE class=s0><TBODY><TR class=g><TD class=s1>Year</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>GS</TD><TD>W</TD><TD>L</TD><TD>SV</TD><TD>ERA</TD><TD>IP</TD><TD>HA</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>ER</TD><TD>BB</TD><TD>K</TD><TD>CG</TD><TD>SHO</TD><TD>WHIP</TD><TD class=s3>Teams</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2007</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>5.67</TD><TD>125.1</TD><TD>161</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>79</TD><TD>48</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.67</TD><TD class=s3_2>CLE</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2008</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>32</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.65</TD><TD>187.2</TD><TD>216</TD><TD>109</TD><TD>97</TD><TD>81</TD><TD>85</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.58</TD><TD class=s3>CLE</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2009</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.46</TD><TD>210.2</TD><TD>205</TD><TD>94</TD><TD>81</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>121</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>1.30</TD><TD class=s3_2>CLE LAN</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2010</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.74</TD><TD>253.1</TD><TD>233</TD><TD>93</TD><TD>77</TD><TD>61</TD><TD>124</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1.16</TD><TD class=s3>LAN,NL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2011</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>22</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.25</TD><TD>260.1</TD><TD>226</TD><TD>74</TD><TD>65</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>153</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>1.03</TD><TD class=s3_2>LAN,NL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2012</TD><TD>32</TD><TD>32</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.71</TD><TD>226.0</TD><TD>239</TD><TD>78</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>29</TD><TD>160</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.19</TD><TD class=s3>LAN</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2013</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.41</TD><TD>272.1</TD><TD>284</TD><TD>84</TD><TD>73</TD><TD>22</TD><TD>168</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.12</TD><TD class=s3_2>LAN,NL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2014</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>20</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.80</TD><TD>270.1</TD><TD>261</TD><TD>90</TD><TD>84</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>184</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>1.10</TD><TD class=s3>LAN,NL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2015</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.96</TD><TD>274.0</TD><TD>276</TD><TD>97</TD><TD>90</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>189</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>1.14</TD><TD class=s3_2>LAN,NL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2016</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.26</TD><TD>266.2</TD><TD>267</TD><TD>83</TD><TD>67</TD><TD>24</TD><TD>206</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>1.09</TD><TD class=s3>LAN,NL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2017</TD><TD>28</TD><TD>28</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.14</TD><TD>210.0</TD><TD>189</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>50</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>170</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0.99</TD><TD class=s3_2>LAN</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2018</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>24</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.99</TD><TD>249.1</TD><TD>212</TD><TD>64</TD><TD>55</TD><TD>30</TD><TD>212</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0.97</TD><TD class=s3>LAN</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2019</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.05</TD><TD>274.1</TD><TD>265</TD><TD>105</TD><TD>93</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>198</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>1.14</TD><TD class=s3_2>OAK,AL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2020</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.94</TD><TD>235.2</TD><TD>261</TD><TD>87</TD><TD>77</TD><TD>32</TD><TD>170</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>1.24</TD><TD class=s3>OAK,AL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2021</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.02</TD><TD>290.0</TD><TD>239</TD><TD>70</TD><TD>65</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>198</TD><TD>14</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0.95</TD><TD class=s3_2>OAK,AL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2022</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.61</TD><TD>234.2</TD><TD>195</TD><TD>72</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>140</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>1.03</TD><TD class=s3>OAK,AL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2023</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.20</TD><TD>267.1</TD><TD>246</TD><TD>101</TD><TD>95</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>170</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>1.10</TD><TD class=s3_2>OAK,AL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2024</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.34</TD><TD>116.0</TD><TD>103</TD><TD>48</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>28</TD><TD>58</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>1.13</TD><TD class=s3>OAK</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>Total</TD><TD>598</TD><TD>594</TD><TD>302</TD><TD>136</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.83</TD><TD>4224.0</TD><TD>4078</TD><TD>1487</TD><TD>1327</TD><TD>734</TD><TD>2748</TD><TD>110</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>1.14</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 10:00 AM

He had 110 CG's, only 8 shy of Clemens, who pitched into 2006 in this test league. I'd say if a computer-generated guy can win 300 with over 100 CG's, almost exactly mimicking the best stats of a "modern era" pitcher, then that portion is working quite well.

Galaril

04-18-2004, 10:06 AM

I have loaded a set of real rosters but for some reason when I go to sign scouts and coaches I have no money the financial sheet shows I got plenty.Is there some easy painless way to free up money?Or am I missing something somewhere? :confused:

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 10:12 AM

For those that appreciate my stats nerdiness/insistence, you should see this as good news: I've just been informed that I'm going to be added to the patch beta team.

FBPro

04-18-2004, 10:16 AM

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 10:46 AM

There is *definitely* some discrepancy about the number of starts guys get. Make sure that your era settings are set to "fair" (which SHOULD be the default). I just checked a 20-year career, and the #1's are maxing out at 38 starts, right where it should be. (The exception, of course, being the MR guys who are put in the rotation at times, which is really a separate issue.) Point being, the best computer-generated pitcher in my league using the correct modern settings with "start highest rested" starter got acceptable stats. I'll post 'em in the next post.
I'm seeing a few starters getting 40 starts and hitting 280-300 innings, which seems a tad high for the "modern era." But, that could be an isolated thing (these couple of guys might be workhorses), and it still pales in comparison to the "starter's endurance" issue.

On a separate note, maybe I'm missing it, or maybe I've forgotten where it is, or maybe it doesn't exist, but is there any way to see the active leaders in categories other than those listed on the "Career Leaders" List? For instance, if I want to see the active list of IP leaders, how would I do that? I swear this is something we can do, but I guess I'm missing it.

HornedFrog Purple

04-18-2004, 10:57 AM

Man, I gotta give props for this. I don't know if it happens often, but this was good to see. It is late July, and I'm battling for first place in my division. KC, who is 11 games out of first, calls up with a trade offer of a 35-year-old SS who is better than my current starter for two solid prospects. Nice!

I had a similar thing but the opposite. I have the AI "favor prospects" btw. I was pretty much out of the race and the AI offered me 1 pretty good and 1 average prospect for a slightly better than average left fielder. I was so taken aback I threw in 200k for good measure. :D

Edit: I should add the AI team was in contention and left field was a sore spot.

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 11:03 AM

Ksyrup:

If it is happening in my test league, it is rare. Just running a quick check:

2024
42-game starter in AL, but he is not among Top 10 IP. Endurance Issue. (I don't have player cards saved, so I won't check them all, but I went to this guy's team. Sure enough. 42 GS, 147.2 IP, 2.99 ERA. Sounds like the exact profile you're talking about.)
39-game starter in NL, also not in Top 10 IP. (I'm going to assume the endurance issue henceforth if the guy isn't in the Top 10 IP.)
no other starters >38 games

2023
none >38

2022
none >38

2021
one guy with 39, not among top 10 in IP

2020
none >38

2019
one guy with 39, not in top 10 IP
one guy with 44, not in top 10 IP
one with with 40, 247 IP
no others >38

2018
one with 42, not in top 10 IP
one with 39, 282.2 IP (same guy with 40 in 2019)

2017
same guy...39, 253.1 IP....workhorse, no doubt

2016
none >38

2015
none >38

So, over the course of an entire decade, there was only one normal SP who started more than 38 games. That doesn't bother me at all. I *like* having the possibility of someone being a tiny bit above the normal ceilings, especially if it doesn't happen very often. It gives the league much more personality, imho. My suspicion is that the low-endurance starter issue should be easy-to-fix. A hard cap on endurance for pitchers in the rotation should solve that one pretty easily.

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 11:06 AM

Yeah, I tend to think it is less of a bug an more of an case where a guy is outperforming the norms. Like I said, I had one guy hit 40 starts and 300 innings pitched one year.

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 11:24 AM

Something to think about it terms of the starter endurance bug. While a hard-coded endurance limit for starters seems like the easy fix, I'd want to make sure that the guys who end up being forced out of the rotation are being forced out because they are no longer effective pitchers, or, in rare cases, are John Smoltz-type guys who are converted because of injury history. Otherwise, from what I'm seeing, we're going to end up with a slew of 10 year starters who suddenly become above-average relievers because their endurance ratings have dropped below "X" while their other ratings remain high, when in real life, guys usually make that conversion because their "stuff, movement, and control" ratings have decreased, not their endurance rating. They could probably pitch 6 innings, but they'd give up 15 runs doing so, because they no longer have the stuff to make it through a lineup 2-3 times and maintain their effectiveness.

Just a thought.

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 11:26 AM

Double Dola.

Check out this guy, particularly his 2020 season:

<TABLE class=s0><TBODY><TR class=g><TD class=s1>Year</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>GS</TD><TD>W</TD><TD>L</TD><TD>SV</TD><TD>ERA</TD><TD>IP</TD><TD>HA</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>ER</TD><TD>BB</TD><TD>K</TD><TD>CG</TD><TD>SHO</TD><TD>WHIP</TD><TD class=s3>Teams</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2007</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>5.74</TD><TD>31.1</TD><TD>29</TD><TD>22</TD><TD>20</TD><TD>20</TD><TD>24</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.56</TD><TD class=s3_2>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2008</TD><TD>91</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>5.38</TD><TD>95.1</TD><TD>90</TD><TD>59</TD><TD>57</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>81</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.49</TD><TD class=s3>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2009</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>2.78</TD><TD>97.0</TD><TD>77</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>30</TD><TD>39</TD><TD>92</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.20</TD><TD class=s3_2>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2010</TD><TD>72</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>3.92</TD><TD>78.0</TD><TD>67</TD><TD>39</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.38</TD><TD class=s3>POR,L2</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2011</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>5.29</TD><TD>85.0</TD><TD>99</TD><TD>55</TD><TD>50</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>78</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.55</TD><TD class=s3_2>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2012</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>14</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3.24</TD><TD>130.2</TD><TD>105</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>53</TD><TD>126</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.21</TD><TD class=s3>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2013</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.59</TD><TD>173.0</TD><TD>151</TD><TD>74</TD><TD>69</TD><TD>64</TD><TD>187</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.24</TD><TD class=s3_2>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2014</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.83</TD><TD>181.1</TD><TD>141</TD><TD>70</TD><TD>57</TD><TD>79</TD><TD>188</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.21</TD><TD class=s3>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2015</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.82</TD><TD>195.0</TD><TD>146</TD><TD>73</TD><TD>61</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>196</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1.00</TD><TD class=s3_2>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2016</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>15</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.17</TD><TD>215.2</TD><TD>147</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>57</TD><TD>210</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.95</TD><TD class=s3>POR,L2</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2017</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.51</TD><TD>202.0</TD><TD>143</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>188</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.93</TD><TD class=s3_2>POR,L2</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2018</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.89</TD><TD>128.1</TD><TD>98</TD><TD>30</TD><TD>27</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>116</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.04</TD><TD class=s3>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2019</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.96</TD><TD>133.1</TD><TD>102</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>29</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>119</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.03</TD><TD class=s3_2>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2020</TD><TD>55</TD><TD>55</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.56</TD><TD>109.0</TD><TD>102</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>26</TD><TD>83</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.17</TD><TD class=s3>POR</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>Total</TD><TD>748</TD><TD>337</TD><TD>98</TD><TD>93</TD><TD>85</TD><TD>2.90</TD><TD>1855.0</TD><TD>1497</TD><TD>690</TD><TD>598</TD><TD>628</TD><TD>1770</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1.15</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

korme

04-18-2004, 11:27 AM

As age hits, endurance drops and starters endurance are getting to levels of middle relievers. Two solutions for Markus:

1) Make endurance take less of a hit.

or

2) Make AI teams able to adjust players as Starters/Relievers accordingly as things like this occur.

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 11:31 AM

The guy I just posted is a good example of what I'm talking about, Guys don't normally go from CY Young contender (2017) to super-stud reliever. If they get knocked out of the rotation, it should be because they can't pitch well anymore, not that they can't pitch well for 6 innings.

Anyway, I'm headed to a 5 year old's birthday party. I'm leaving my league on sim, and hopefully it will not have crashed when I get back. One thing I want to check out is whether an injury has contributed to what we're seeing. If so, I think that would be cool, if it is toned down. As it stands, we've got 5-10 Smoltz's p year, which is unrealistic.

RPI-Fan

04-18-2004, 11:36 AM

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 11:37 AM

I'd want to make sure that the guys who end up being forced out of the rotation are being forced out because they are no longer effective pitchers, or, in rare cases, are John Smoltz-type guys who are converted because of injury history. Otherwise, from what I'm seeing, we're going to end up with a slew of 10 year starters who suddenly become above-average relievers because their endurance ratings have dropped below "X" while their other ratings remain high, when in real life, guys usually make that conversion because their "stuff, movement, and control" ratings have decreased, not their endurance rating.That is a *VERY* good point. From the guys I've tracked, injuries can play a part in an endurance loss. However, it appears that some guys are *only losing endurance*. Their stuff/control/movement ratings are staying static, and even in some cases they get one of those seemingly-random bumps. I was talking to Kuffrey just a few minutes ago about one guy. In 2006, he had 26 apperances, 24 starts, and was 5-8, 4.23, 121.1 IP. At the time he had 45 endurance, 62 movement, 60 control. In 2014, after one season-long injury and a few ratings increases, I would suspect, he was at 15 endurance, 62 movement, 88 control. He remained a "SP" though, and in 2014 he had 45 GS, 81IP, 0-3, 3.44 ERA. True, guys come back from year-long injuries, but if he takes a hit in one category and one category only, it probably shouldn't be endurance, and if it is, the AI has got to figure out that a guy like that should be switched to MR or CL.

The bigger, more difficult issue here would be what about guys like Kent Mercker who spend some time during their career in the rotation and some time in the 'pen?

GoSeahawks

04-18-2004, 11:42 AM

Skydog,

I'm directing this at you since you are on the beta patch team. Hit By Pitch statistics aren't calculated into career OBP. They never have in the OOTP series and it's getting frustrating. Maybe you could convince Markus to fix this since you have dirt on him;)

Ksyrup

04-18-2004, 11:42 AM

What I don't get, is why those 2018-2020 years are listed as 45, 45, and 55 Games STARTED.

I was confused by this whole thing, since the stats posted were listing GS. I wonder if this stat is being kept incorrectly as well?
No, he's getting the starts, because his ratings are so good and he's listed as a starter. But, his endurance has dropped to the point where he can only pitch 2-3 innings at a time.

chrisj

04-18-2004, 11:44 AM

On a separate note, maybe I'm missing it, or maybe I've forgotten where it is, or maybe it doesn't exist, but is there any way to see the active leaders in categories other than those listed on the "Career Leaders" List? For instance, if I want to see the active list of IP leaders, how would I do that? I swear this is something we can do, but I guess I'm missing it.

Go to the Almanac, and then go to "Display all players".

GoSeahawks

04-18-2004, 11:46 AM

Go to the Almanac, and then go to "Display all players".
I can't seem to view their career stats from that page.

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 11:48 AM

The guy I just posted is a good example of what I'm talking about, Guys don't normally go from CY Young contender (2017) to super-stud reliever. If they get knocked out of the rotation, it should be because they can't pitch well anymore, not that they can't pitch well for 6 innings.Agreed.

I'm leaving my league on sim, and hopefully it will not have crashed when I get back. One thing I want to check out is whether an injury has contributed to what we're seeing. If so, I think that would be cool, if it is toned down. As it stands, we've got 5-10 Smoltz's p year, which is unrealistic.I was averaging 7 1/2 minutes per season simming when I was at the office yesterday, so I left it on overnight, looking to get 100 years. I *THINK* I have it set to save the player cards every season as well. I'll run by there in a bit and see what I can see from that league.

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 11:49 AM

I can't seem to view their career stats from that page.If it isn't set to include player reports in the almanac every season, you won't be able to.

RPI-Fan

04-18-2004, 11:59 AM

Question, re: Financials.

On the league options, Miscallaneous screen, what does "Adjust Team Markets" do?

Thanks,
rpi-fan

Bad-example

04-18-2004, 01:04 PM

Ah, it sounds like the interface has made precious little progress. I guess after seeing the terrible interface they came up with for ITP, I shouldn't really be surprised that OOTP's interface was not significantly upgraded. I will again pass on OOTP.

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 02:28 PM

It isn't always injury-related, but it is related to an endurance drop. Check out this guy:

<TABLE class=s0><TBODY><TR class=g><TD class=s1>Year</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>GS</TD><TD>W</TD><TD>L</TD><TD>SV</TD><TD>ERA</TD><TD>IP</TD><TD>HA</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>ER</TD><TD>BB</TD><TD>K</TD><TD>CG</TD><TD>SHO</TD><TD>WHIP</TD><TD class=s3>Teams</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2026</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>9.00</TD><TD>4.0</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.25</TD><TD class=s3_2>MIL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2027</TD><TD>69</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>4.66</TD><TD>83.0</TD><TD>85</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>39</TD><TD>73</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.49</TD><TD class=s3>MIL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2028</TD><TD>88</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>4.30</TD><TD>104.2</TD><TD>101</TD><TD>51</TD><TD>50</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>101</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.31</TD><TD class=s3_2>MIL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2029</TD><TD>27</TD><TD>27</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.78</TD><TD>143.0</TD><TD>119</TD><TD>67</TD><TD>60</TD><TD>72</TD><TD>161</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.34</TD><TD class=s3>MIL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2030</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.06</TD><TD>197.0</TD><TD>158</TD><TD>80</TD><TD>67</TD><TD>59</TD><TD>220</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.10</TD><TD class=s3_2>MIL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2031</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>14</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.86</TD><TD>191.0</TD><TD>165</TD><TD>90</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>182</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.16</TD><TD class=s3>MIL ANA</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2032</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.17</TD><TD>170.1</TD><TD>168</TD><TD>90</TD><TD>79</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>163</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.24</TD><TD class=s3_2>ANA</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2033</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.29</TD><TD>109.0</TD><TD>93</TD><TD>58</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>26</TD><TD>121</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.09</TD><TD class=s3>ANA OAK</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2034</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.65</TD><TD>120.0</TD><TD>124</TD><TD>65</TD><TD>62</TD><TD>51</TD><TD>138</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.46</TD><TD class=s3_2>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2035</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.10</TD><TD>132.2</TD><TD>96</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>29</TD><TD>148</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.94</TD><TD class=s3>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2036</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.76</TD><TD>137.0</TD><TD>102</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>147</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.97</TD><TD class=s3_2>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2037</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.08</TD><TD>128.2</TD><TD>101</TD><TD>53</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>151</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.12</TD><TD class=s3>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2038</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.14</TD><TD>139.0</TD><TD>103</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>32</TD><TD>146</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.97</TD><TD class=s3_2>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2039</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.22</TD><TD>131.1</TD><TD>101</TD><TD>51</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>40</TD><TD>151</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.07</TD><TD class=s3>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2040</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.59</TD><TD>102.2</TD><TD>84</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>100</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.18</TD><TD class=s3_2>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2041</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.83</TD><TD>101.0</TD><TD>90</TD><TD>50</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>109</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.22</TD><TD class=s3>KC</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2042</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.07</TD><TD>108.1</TD><TD>92</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>104</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.25</TD><TD class=s3_2>KC DET</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2043</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.20</TD><TD>83.2</TD><TD>76</TD><TD>40</TD><TD>39</TD><TD>23</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.18</TD><TD class=s3>DET</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2044</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>5.29</TD><TD>83.1</TD><TD>93</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>29</TD><TD>67</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.46</TD><TD class=s3_2>DET</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

In 2031, he had 46 endurance. By the end of 2032 (age 29), it was down to 31. This is very interesting, though. Notice this: <TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 700pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-border-alt: solid #AAAAAA 1.0pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=933 border=1><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #aaaaaa; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; WIDTH: 0.1in; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8" width=10><TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BACKGROUND: #f0f0f0; WIDTH: 698pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=931 border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #556795; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff; WIDTH: 0.1in; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff" vAlign=top width=10><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:date Month="8" Day="19" Year="2032">Thursday 8/19/2032</st1:date> :<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><o:p></o:p>

</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: #aaaaaa; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #aaaaaa 1pt solid; WIDTH: 0.1in; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #aaaaaa 1pt solid" width=10><TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BACKGROUND: #f0f0f0; WIDTH: 698pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=931 border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND: whitesmoke; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff; WIDTH: 0.1in; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff" vAlign=top width=10>Shane Almendarez (file:///C:/Program%20Files/Out%20of%20the%20Park%20Developments/OOTP%206/First%20Official%20League.lg/Almanac/2032.alm/p1860.html) has lost a step. His speed drops to 37 ...
Shane Almendarez (file:///C:/Program%20Files/Out%20of%20the%20Park%20Developments/OOTP%206/First%20Official%20League.lg/Almanac/2032.alm/p1860.html) has lost some momentum, his range at RF drops to 32 ...
Roderick West (file:///C:/Program%20Files/Out%20of%20the%20Park%20Developments/OOTP%206/First%20Official%20League.lg/Almanac/2032.alm/p1989.html) has lost some lower body strength, his duration drops to 46 ...
William Roybal (file:///C:/Program%20Files/Out%20of%20the%20Park%20Developments/OOTP%206/First%20Official%20League.lg/Almanac/2032.alm/p2076.html) has lost some lower body strength, his duration drops to 29 ...<o:p></o:p>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><o:p></o:p>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>It says, in 2032, that he dropped to 46. However, it clearly shows in the 2031 Almanac that he was at 46 at the end of 2031. The 2032 Almanac shows that he is at 31 by the end of that season. I double-checked, and he does not appear at any other point in the development history, nor was he injured. There may be a reporting bug happening here as well. Going to check a couple more guys like this and see what I come up with.

--Ben

Ben E Lou

04-18-2004, 02:31 PM

OK....here's Thomas Fiol:

<TABLE class=s0><TBODY><TR class=g><TD class=s1>Year</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>GS</TD><TD>W</TD><TD>L</TD><TD>SV</TD><TD>ERA</TD><TD>IP</TD><TD>HA</TD><TD>R</TD><TD>ER</TD><TD>BB</TD><TD>K</TD><TD>CG</TD><TD>SHO</TD><TD>WHIP</TD><TD class=s3>Teams</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2032</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.44</TD><TD>93.1</TD><TD>106</TD><TD>54</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>48</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.52</TD><TD class=s3_2>BAL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2033</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>36</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>15</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.65</TD><TD>187.2</TD><TD>192</TD><TD>112</TD><TD>97</TD><TD>74</TD><TD>154</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.42</TD><TD class=s3>BAL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2034</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.16</TD><TD>165.1</TD><TD>144</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>58</TD><TD>50</TD><TD>148</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.17</TD><TD class=s3_2>BAL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2035</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.41</TD><TD>161.0</TD><TD>164</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>61</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>147</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.25</TD><TD class=s3>BAL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2036</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>4.12</TD><TD>159.1</TD><TD>148</TD><TD>74</TD><TD>73</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>144</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.21</TD><TD class=s3_2>BAL COL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2037</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.29</TD><TD>169.2</TD><TD>138</TD><TD>62</TD><TD>62</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>167</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.06</TD><TD class=s3>COL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2038</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.81</TD><TD>127.2</TD><TD>113</TD><TD>58</TD><TD>54</TD><TD>38</TD><TD>133</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.18</TD><TD class=s3_2>COL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2039</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>45</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.84</TD><TD>171.0</TD><TD>135</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>54</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>162</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.99</TD><TD class=s3>SL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2040</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.81</TD><TD>151.0</TD><TD>136</TD><TD>67</TD><TD>64</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>143</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.23</TD><TD class=s3_2>SL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2041</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.89</TD><TD>134.0</TD><TD>118</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>126</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.27</TD><TD class=s3>SL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2042</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.51</TD><TD>120.2</TD><TD>92</TD><TD>54</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>48</TD><TD>105</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.16</TD><TD class=s3_2>SL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>2043</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2.57</TD><TD>115.2</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>33</TD><TD>31</TD><TD>121</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0.98</TD><TD class=s3>SL</TD></TR><TR class=g2><TD class=s1_2>2044</TD><TD>53</TD><TD>52</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.28</TD><TD>96.0</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>39</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>30</TD><TD>79</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.17</TD><TD class=s3_2>SL</TD></TR><TR class=g><TD class=s1>Total</TD><TD>549</TD><TD>548</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>104</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>3.53</TD><TD>1852.1</TD><TD>1650</TD><TD>788</TD><TD>727</TD><TD>565</TD><TD>1677</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>1.20</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>