For the love of all that is holy, why can't SOMEONE get this right???
 

OOTP---Mogul----PureSim, it doesn't matter. NONE of them seem to have the first clue when it comes to young players making their debuts at anything resembling the proper time. I downloaded the PureSim demo last night, and let it run 25 seasons overnight. Just like in OOTP and Mogul, players--good players--are playing their first full seasons at age 26, 27, 28 and up. For example, I'm looking right now at a PureSim player card of a 28-year-old who had a .291-32-103 season in 2030--and 2030 was his first full season as a starter. Gimme a break. If this was an isolated occurrence, then MAYBE I could let it pass, but it happens FAR too often in all three games. Average ages of everyday players in OOTP and BBM have been shown to be 1.5-2.0 years too high. I didn't do calculations on PureSim, but looking through the game, it certainly looks like it is in the same range. Man, I hope Solecismic is doing a baseball sim.

That is one thing that always bugged me about OOTP. Have not tried the others.

This is just one reason why OOTP kills me. The player development and creation algorithms are so messed up that you end up with a batch of great players, and then a patch of replacement level players, and very little in between. The great players get locked up to long terms deals before they hit free agency, so teams spend millions on replacement level talent.

So, on the off chance that a minor leaguer develops quickly and you can get him to the majors at 24/25, most teams have a $3m crapfest playing that position due to the screwed up market.

Drafted players just don't develop fast enough, and even after all that talk about moving to a DIPS/stat based engine, there's still not enough correlation between minor league performance and major league performance. With 90% of the players, you could turn stats off and just use ratings as your guide, and you'd be more effective.

When Shaun had initially talked about not using ratings at all with PureSim, I wrote him an email and said I would buy it on the spot. He backtracked and ended up using ratings, and that's why I just haven't purchased it. And I probably won't buy another baseball sim until someone pays more attention to the player production end than they spend on the ratings.

More info
 

What size league were you using?

I'll do a study and see if what you are saying is proven out in the numbers. This is a very difficult thing to balance as it sits at the confluence of a number of factors that evolve over time. The player career arc, aging algorithm, retirement logic, contract/free agent AI all of them play a role. I'm not making excuses, just saying it is a tough one to balance. And each tweak of an independent variable requires running 50 or so seasons to get a read on the impact.

Note that all of the above variables can be tweaked in PureSim's XML file but that is not something a user should have to do. That stuff is more for me -- its just easier to build a data-driven engine.

I'll have a look.

I know this is completely against his policy, but it sure would be nice if Jim were to tell us if he was making a baseball sim or not. Would save some of us a lot of time.

League size was 24 teams (2 leagues, 3 divisions, 4 teams each).

I appreciate you taking a look at it, and I hope you know I wasn't taking a shot at you personally. Realistic player development is very important to me in a baseball sim in particular, and I've just been continually frustrated beyond belief at it in every game I've looked at. There are a lot of things I could enjoy in the new versions of Mogul and Puresim, but the player age thing is an absolute deal-breaker for me at this point.

What types of info are you looking at? Average age per team? What season players have their best seasons? Give me an idea of what the key indicators are as far as you see them. The more you can quantify it the better chance I have of analyzing it.

The primary problem with all three games is pretty much the same: youngsters are not getting into the everyday lineup. It appears that player peak ages are pretty good in both PureSim and Mogul. However, like the guy I mentioned above, players aren't starting until later than they should. Some extensive research was done, and it was found that the average age in MLB from 1980-2003 of players who had >350 AB's in a season was right around 28.8 years. In my current PureSim season (after 25 years of simming), 169 batters had >350 AB's. Here are the ages of the players under 29 who had that many AB's:

28: 23
27: 10
26: 7
25: 1

Yup, that's right. Only 41 out of 169 fell under the average age. More alarming is that not one player aged 24 or under played every day. I'll have to do a search and give you the exact numbers that should be exected there, but, having checked into the numbers thoroughly, I can assure you that that is waaaaaayyyyyy off.

Not to be a nitpicker but shouldn't you include 29 in your breakdown if the number you were mentioning was 28.8?

Yep, that part is troubling to me, but I ended up choosing Pure Sim for my baseball sim needs regardless.

Three reasons:

1) Mogul just isn't doing it for me.
2) OOTP just keeps giving me the same issues.
3) While Pure Sim still has a few issues (a big one is the one you are talking about), the xml file alows tweaks and Shaun is simply terrific about helping others and dealing with the criticism of his game.

I like the look and feel of Pure Sim. I'm going to take some time playing around with it and try to get a fictional league put together. I'm thinking about going with the same league you did Skydog, 24 teams, 3 divisions a league.

I went ahead and took the thirty dollar plunge last night. I'll give Mogul another try three patches down the line and see what it gives me, but I'm going to devote my time to playing Pure Sim for awhile.

Oh, and Shaun, the add on packs are terrific. Nice touch.

My point wasn't to give exact numbers, but to illustrate how few young players are playing every day.

I did find some of the research numbers (at the Mogul beta area). It would indicate that, based on 169 >350 AB players, the following should have been the under-29 breakdowns:

18-20: 1.15
21: 2.44
22: 4.99
23: 8.37
24: 11.29
25: 14.55
26: 16.02
27: 16.72
28: 16.71

That's a total of 92 under-29 players (as opposed to the 41 in PureSim) in a league this size that should have gotten 350 or more at bats. Or, looked at another way, 39.53 players under 26 should have been getting 350 AB's, and only one did. That's why I didn't bother to to full breakdowns; it was so obviously way off that it wasn't really worth the time at this point.

FWIW, right now I've got all three shelved. I haven't purchased PureSim yet, but it would be a definite purchase if the player ages came closer to reality.

Another question: are there plans for customized HTML reports from PureSim (or am I doing something wrong with the demo version?) I can only get the one report that is REALLY spread out across the screen.

Details....

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...3&postcount=60

Here is the hitter data. This is all batters who had 350+ at bats in a season from 1900 through 2003.

HTML Code:

One more thing for Shaun:

FYI, when I was doing the tally for PureSim, even 26, 27 and 28-year-olds were running extremely until I got down around 450 AB's or so. At the 500 AB mark or so, I think I had only seen less than five players aged 25-27 even.

Shaun, have you heard of the technique called Design of Experiments? I'm not sure how well it would apply to software algorithms, but we used it to study physical processes. It's a technique that allows you to simultaneously change more than one variable, and not only detect the effect of that variable, but its interactions with the other variables. If it's something that could be applied to your software algorithms, it could speed up your investigation quite a bit.

Great data! Just what I was looking for thanks.

It has been awhile since I tried Puresim. Is there a way to turn ratings off (or limit them in any way)? Sorry to thread jack.

The player aging problem is one of the most frustrating parts of the games for me as well. The other is the use of "ratings" so much that stats aren't important. My ideal game would have a player "scouted" once that gives you an idea of his potential in every area. So if he was a 100 in power or "excellent" or whatever, that would be his potential and it would be up to the manager to determine (by stats) whether he had reached that potential (or gone over the hill and was declining).

I'm in the camp hoping Jim comes out with something playable. So far this year, I have spent $90 on three games, and not one has been worth the time. First I get guilted into buying Baseball Mogul (that "yes, Virgina, there are righties and lefties" is very cute, but misleading. There is a claim there are righty and lefty factors, but without being able to see whether a player is right handed or left, then it is still completely taking out a part of the game that is important. Heck, Clay could claim there are actual little men running bases inside your computer for all that this supposed r/l factor plays into the game). Baseball Mogul still is missing important elements of both the game and the financials that make it totally unsatisfactory. (Not to mention the many bugs that make it totally unplayable.)

Bought MLB 2006 for the PS2, and it was a bug ridden piece of crap (which is totally unforgivable in a console game). The career mode was an interesting concept, but the "manager mode" and franchise model stunk.

Then I bought MVP 2005 because of the general praise. It is more annoying than fun. "Player happiness" is very important it seems, yet there seems to be no way to make anyone happy. Anyone that does not start every single game (even when completely exhuasted) gets mad, No one will be a back up or a situational player even when they sign a contract to be one, and the only players I can make happy are the starting pitchers, yet Smolz and Hudson always suck no matter what I do with them. Errrrrrrr....


So, please Jim. Come and save us from the complete lack of decent baseball games. I would love just one that has the promise of OOTP, or even better a more complete HH.

You need some new glasses.

One major reason I don't announce new projects very far in advance is because I'm working on a lot of things.

That said, the bar is very, very high in baseball - these games are far prettier than I could ever hope to create without a team. I don't have the financial ability to hire a dedicated artist, though I feel confident that my engine design is very different from anything on the market. Maybe someday. Not this year.

While I'm disappointed, I *really* appreciate you letting us know this. Now we know that it is worth our time to keep giving Shaun and Clay feedback.

Ditto. This one really hurts. I was really hoping for a Solecismic baseball game this summer.

Good news for FBCB though as it seems to be the only other game that I can play (besides MP FOF).

Aha!!! He's got an engine!!! He's halfway there!!! He slipped!

:D:D

Jim,

I appreciate the feedback as well. On the contrary, I think an FOF-looking baseball sim would do very well. As you know with your other games, it's all about the engine and that engine receives a lot of praise as well as a large audience.

Reading about all these sims has caused me to re-write yet again, but it's only for my own personal uses. This thing will not die (unfortunately).

Same here except that I will think about going back to OOTP5 because it handles historical seasons very well (though the jury is still out on BM and historical seasons).

By the way, has everyone given up on OOTP7?

Puresim has evolved and improved so much in the past year that I have total faith that these issues will be worked out. It's really a great game. I hate to come off like a shill but the game just gets better all the time.

Last I heard about the HTML reports, Shaun was looking at it, but hadn't stated any concrete plans. Hopefully, there'll be something coming, either from Shaun or from a third-party add-in.

1. I completely agree with Craig with regard to a Solecismic baseball sim with an interface similar to FOF and TCY. When I enter my five WR's in TCY, I've often picture entering my five SP's in FOB. The engine's the thing.

2. I haven't given up on OOTP7, primarily because of the great news that everything is being rewritten from scratch, but the fact is that it appears to be 6ish months away. I'd really like for another baseball game to fill the void during that time, and right now, nothing is doing it for me. What's frustrating is that both Puresim and Mogul appear to have most of the elements in place to make it happen for me (although Puresim needs some way to export screens to seal the deal for me, and Mogul needs a yearly almanac). Both games could be tightened up in a few key areas and get me playing them a lot, I would think.

I need glasses less than Clay needs to put that information in a usable area. If that is the only place it is listed, it is not very user-friendly, is it? Or am I supposed to open up every single players card and memorize whether they are a lefty, righty, or a switch hitter?

Dola: Of course, what makes Baseball Mogul unplayable is less that (though that makes it not as enjoyable/immersive) is the number of huge game-breaking bugs. Like when an expansion draft takesalmost every player from your roster (after hours of play, I might add).

Echoed. I would play OOTP or Puresim much more with a BBM (circa '98)-like or FOF-like interface. I like playing career games while doing other things, and something like a full-screen OOTP (or ITP - which I would have loved to have gotten into) are just too much of a footprint for my play. Ditto for running a dynasty... I hate alt-tabbing constantly.

Another echo. A spreadsheet like interface with a solid engine was what I was envisioning for "FOB". But with SI backing OOTP7, it will be interesting to see what Markus pumps out.

Yeah, I was trying to start with Tampa Bay after the 1998 expansion draft and when I left Anaheim and went to TB, they choose almost all Angeles. What gives?


Todd

From what I gather it is an AI bug that the expansion teams only look at the first two teams alphabetically when making selections (so Anahiem and Atlanta), and there are no rules against taking no more than two players from any given team or allowing you to add more protected players.

BTW, you can put "important" information, like height and weight, in the roster fields, but not unimportant information like batting side and throwing arm. I mean, who doesn't make sure every roster has so many 6' players or enough players under 200 pounds. :rolleyes:

Good suggestions, Homer. How 'bout posting them in the Mogul forums, too, so Clay has an actual chance of seeing them.

uhhhh...yeah...hate to break it to the colored man, but 28.8 is 29. nice job SD. :rolleyes:

Am I missing something?

I thought it was pretty clear he was showing how many players in the league universe under the IRL average were represented.

29 is not under the 28.8 average. At least I don't think it is.

fwiw, i do have the same probs as SD when it comes to youngins - not enough Miguel Carbera's and Mark Prior's and Albert Pujols'. i like seeing players firsthand have a crack at breaking all-time records, and it's very hard to do that in baseball sim games because all the players start their career too late and are worth shit by the time they reach 34/35. so you need about 15 or so years to have a crack at breaking any major baseball record, yet most baseball text sim players have a career that lasts 10 years or so. poot.

Good decision IMO. I think Jim's fanbase will purchase anything he releases, but to do well financially he has to attract the fringe customers who already have multiple baseball game choices. While many of us love Jim's games because of the rock solid engine, those on the fringe often are more attracted to the bells and whistles of other games.

i don't consider myself a fringe customer of his, i just would like to have something visually appealling on top of having a solid game engine. i don't think you necessarily have to sacrifice either for the sake of one (FM doesn't). yes, yes, SIgames is much larger than Solecismic. but i don't subscribe to the "you can only have one or the other" line of thinking.

i understand the small operation in which Solecismic is run, but that doesn't mean i want to settle for a game that looks like Excel on roids.

Very nice.

Although I do like the possibility of a FOB game, I think TCY 2 is just around the corner. :)

Todd

I agree. I would be very happy with a FOF-looking baseball sim. It's all about the engine.

This might be a bug related to switching teams during expansion. I haven't seen this bug before in a normal expansion draft, nor have I seen it reported until now.

Let me know if you have steps to reproduce it and I should be able to fix it.

Clay

Version 8.07

Fixes the bugs I created in 8.06, plus some improvements in talent development and Free Agent AI.

BTW, if you're having trouble with player talent levels, you can adjust them in Rookies.ini. If you make some tweaks that improve (or worsen) the average age issue, let me know.

Thanks!

Clay
cjd at sportsmogul dot com

Start in 1997 with the Anaheim Angeles, switch to Tampa Bay after the season via the editor. This should replicate the bug.

Thanks,

Todd

Hmmm.....I did a little tweaking of these and ran a 100-year sim. I got hitters' average ages to improve quite a bit, while getting pitchers a little too young, but not terrible (average age has been 27.5-28.0...should be somewhere in the 28.7 range) Since this thing sims so fast, I'll do another tweak and run another test. One promising side effect of younger players in my 100-year sim: *Every* team made the playoffs at least once, the Yanks only won 25 World Championships, and no team averaged 100 losses per season. Here's the rookies.ini file I used:
Here are the original settings:

With these settings, a slugger hit exactly 755 homers. His career development went as follows:

• Drafted 1(9) at age 18.
• Went straight to the majors at 18. (Not a huge problem here. He was with Milwaukee--probably a half-decent and cheap option.
• Struggled in first year, but showed some promise: .197-20-73
• .268-30-85 at age 19.
• Missed a big chunk of years at ages 20 and 21 due to injury. Was having a breakout year at age 20, but struggled in his return at age 21.
• .254-30-86 at age 22
• .266-48-113 at age 23
• .308-64-146 at age 24
• Prime years age 24-33. Average ranged from .270-.317 during this time, no full season with less than 33 homers during this time
• Looks like he's starting to fade at 34: .252-32-86
• From age 34-37, averages range from .252-.281, HR's range from 27-39
• Part-time player at 38, but hits 24 homers in only 222 AB's.
• Fades at age 39, spend second half of season in AAA, then retires.

Not bad. Just one player, but not bad.

Here's another, a player who had 3,537 hits:

• Drafted 1(23) in 2043, at age 18.
• Age 18: 200 AB's in AA, 13 AB's in AAA
• Age 19: 327 AB's in AAA, 316 AB's in MLB: .234-4-25
• Age 20: first full season in MLB: .301-15-78
• Ages 21-23: doesn't crack .300 either of these years, but ranges from .268-.295, with 15-23 HR's
• Age 24: .338-29-125
• Really in his prime statistically from ages 24-37: .271-.338, 14-33 HR's. At age 37 he was .317-19-70
• Finally began to fade at age 38: .217-20-58
• .224-16-59 at age 39, and done.

One more check. I wanted to look at a random solid starter, but not a Hall Of Famer. I run across 40-year-old Walt Drudge. He was an everyday player for 12 seasons, is a .268 lifetime hitter with 254 homers, 973 RBI's, and 2017 hits. Here's his story:

• Drafted 2(17) at age 21
• Age 21: 422 AB's in A-Ball, 12 AB's in AA
• Age 22: 318 AB's in A-Ball, 70 AB's in AA, 17 in MLB
• Age 23: 366 AB's in AA, 148 in AAA, 54 in MLB
• Age 24: 20 AB's in AAA, 609 in MLB: .251-17-67
• Ages 25 and 26: .258-14-65 and .246-12-51
• Breakthrough year at 27: .270-28-82
• Prime years 27-32: ranged from .270-.293, HR's from 23-34 during that time
• 33-35 was .244-11-72, .256-15-81, .270-13-52
• Pinch hitter for rest of his career. Best year as PH was at age 36: 69 G's, 75 AB's, .293 average

Tweaking rookies.ini a little (lowering pitcher number), and running another sim. Thoughts on these development curves?

I wouldn't think an 18 year old would be allowed to hit .197 in the bigs unless he was a gold glove shortstop and the team just really didn't have any other options at all.

The other two players look pretty realistic to me.

dola

doing a little research - post WWII I've only found 2 18 year olds to get significant playing time - Robin Yount and Ed Kranepool. Kranepool had 279 at bats and hit just .209. This was the 1963 NY Mets, so I'm not sure that even counts.

Robin Yount had 344 ab and hit .250.

There have been some pitchers - Bob Feller, Larry Dierker, a couple of others.