Alright Boyz, Here We Go!!!! (OOTP9 First Impressions...)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i agree with HA and molson. I don't operate realistically (there would be riots in boston if any team did what i did last night - traded varitek, lowell, ortiz, wakefield, schilling, lugo, coco crisp, jd drew for - bunch of prospects, alex gordon, joe mauer, ryan howard). I just play and enjoy.

LOL, we're cut from the same cloth. i love them young studs. i was busy trying to move 31 year old Roy Oswalt, who just won the Cy Young for my team, in exchange for younger stud pitchers. this doesn't even happen in real life. i do whatever it takes to build a long term winner, i can only assume the AI is going to do whatever it takes and don't fault it for doing such.

[Alan T]

I actually find myself doing the opposite.. I get a player from youth turn them into a star and then get caught up in trying to make them one of the all time greats.. I've been trying pretty hard to get a 30 game winning starting pitcher (with 2008 style of stats/pitching rotations) as well as a 400 game winner, but keep coming up short on both.

I'll usually ride a pitcher well past their prime trying to inch them up the leaderboard.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'd argue that if it's going wiht the one it thinks is better, it makes for a more challenging game. Would it happen in real life? Absolutely not. Would a human playing a computer game do it? Absoultely. I could have an 85-85-85 guy save 40 for 6 straight seasons, but if some youngster develops into a 95-95-95 player, the top guy is getting demoted regardless of past performance. And that would give me an advantage over the AI.

The whole point here is that I have ratings set to zero. Theoretically (and according to Marcus), this has been fixed so that ratings play a minimal role in the evaluation process and should be pretty much at zero when you've got players with an adequate amount of experience/stats to judge. What the AI should have seen going into the season was a closer with 3 40+ save, sub-2.00 ERA seasons and a young guy with 1 good setup season and made his judgment on who should close accordingly. There's no way, based solely on stats, that the closer would be replaced in that scenario.

Not only is it not realistic to me, but it's not working as advertised (as far as I can tell).

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The whole point here is that I have ratings set to zero. Theoretically (and according to Marcus), this has been fixed so that ratings play a minimal role in the evaluation process and should be pretty much at zero when you've got players with an adequate amount of experience/stats to judge. What the AI should have seen going into the season was a closer with 3 40+ save, sub-2.00 ERA seasons and a young guy with 1 good setup season and made his judgment on who should close accordingly. There's no way, based solely on stats, that the closer would be replaced in that scenario.

Not only is it not realistic to me, but it's not working as advertised (as far as I can tell).

Well, in your example, nobody should ever get put ahead of a decent performing guy because they wouldn't have the chance to play and put up good numbers. My guess is that they aren't using ratings, but most likely potential is figuring in there somehow...it has to. Plus, you are dealing with a questionable area, the bullpen. The save stat is relatively meaningless, what are the peripherals. Closers usually don't get "demoted", but sometimes closers are traded to make room for a potentially better one, or closers are signed and then put into setup duty.

Your old example (the historical sims) had much clearer problems, I'd be interested to see if you were still having them, rather than this new closer problem (guys putting up All-Star and Cy Young numbers, then get dumped in to AAA). When you say a guy had an ERA in the mid 3s then started in AAA the next season, I don't really see that as unfathomable, especially in early decades.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

one of the big things i do have a problem with, however, is that since i have the Japan Pro League enabled i see a TON of japanese FA's in my FA pool. there's too much convergence between the 2 leagues. i want to stop the influx of Japanese talent in my MLB league. it's generating too many good players.

You can turn it on and off as you fit (I think). You can restrict movement in either direction using the game setup.

[Anthony]

turn it off completely - or decrease the numbers. i don't have a problem with 1 or 2 Japanese FA's showing up in the MLB free agency pool. i may just have to turn it off, too much talent isn't good.

i also am going to reduce the number of rounds in the ammy draft to 10. 20 is too much and i don't need so many 1 star prospects. i have way too many good players on my team and too many good prospects, not enough room to do something with my prospects.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

turn it off completely - or decrease the numbers. i don't have a problem with 1 or 2 Japanese FA's showing up in the MLB free agency pool. i may just have to turn it off, too much talent isn't good.

i also am going to reduce the number of rounds in the ammy draft to 10. 20 is too much and i don't need so many 1 star prospects. i have way too many good players on my team and too many good prospects, not enough room to do something with my prospects.

Well, I haven't played with it too much, but since you have MLB-style rosters (with lots of hispanic players) it probably wouldn't do much good to set foreigner limits. What you want to model is tough (in that MLB teams only have access to limited players in real life), and I'm not sure OOTP is quite set up to do that. Could be an interesting thought for future versions though.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by miked

Well, in your example, nobody should ever get put ahead of a decent performing guy because they wouldn't have the chance to play and put up good numbers. My guess is that they aren't using ratings, but most likely potential is figuring in there somehow...it has to. Plus, you are dealing with a questionable area, the bullpen. The save stat is relatively meaningless, what are the peripherals. Closers usually don't get "demoted", but sometimes closers are traded to make room for a potentially better one, or closers are signed and then put into setup duty.

Your old example (the historical sims) had much clearer problems, I'd be interested to see if you were still having them, rather than this new closer problem (guys putting up All-Star and Cy Young numbers, then get dumped in to AAA). When you say a guy had an ERA in the mid 3s then started in AAA the next season, I don't really see that as unfathomable, especially in early decades.

I've got this league running on my other computer and now have access to the actual numbers, so here they are. Keep in mind that I haven't done a real thorough review of the league for these issues, I just came across them as I looked at various teams/players in a broad view of the league's history after I simmed:

Closer issue:

Jeff Lahti

1983: 7-4, 15 SV, 1.71 ERA, 100 IP, 71 HA, 19 BB, 81 K
1984: 4-2, 42 SV, 1.93 ERA, 70 IP, 53 HA, 16 BB, 72 K
1985: 8-3, 44 SV, 1.57 ERA, 74.1 IP, 46 HA, 20 BB, 82 K
1986: 7-1, 2 SV, 2.39 ERA, 86.2 IP, 56 HA, 26 BB, 86 K
1987: 7-1, 4 SV, 1.76 ERA, 76.2 IP, 52 HA, 23 BB, 76 K
1988: 2-3, 2 SV, 2.45 ERA, 92 IP, 58 HA, 21 BB, 101 K
1989: 3-1, 3 SV, 1.08 ERA, 75 IP, 44 HA, 22 BB, 79 K
1990: 4-2, 45 SV, 1.38 ERA, 72 IP, 44 HA, 16 BB, 74 K
1991: 3-6, 2 SV, 2.53 ERA, 99.2 IP, 76 HA, 34 BB, 88 K
1992: 5-9, 44 SV, 3.13 ERA, 74.2 IP, 72 HA, 28 BB, 77 K
1993: 3-4, 4 SV, 2.02 ERA, 58 IP, 48 HA, 17 BB, 38 K
1994: 6-5, 30 SV, 2.32 ERA, 62 IP, 57 HA, 16 BB, 43 K

I don't see any reason why the AI would continue to yank this guy in and out of the closer's role. None. It's not that his replacements were awful - in each year, the guy was good (not AS good as Lahti, but good enough to be an effective closer). It's that, based on stats, the AI would make these kinds of decisions irrespective of the flow of the game. It's a lack of continuity that I find bothersome - not carrying over decisions and/or basing them on logic. Why would a team replace a closer that had the year Lahti had in 1985, even if some hot shot, sure-fire youngster was ready for the job? The Yankees didn't make Mariano Rivera the closer over Wetteland - he set up until Wetteland's contract was up, then let him go and Rivera took over. Had Wetteland still been effective and on the Yankees, there's no way he would have been replaced until he started showing signs of deteriorating. With 2 years left on his deal and K-Rod a FA after this year, would Rivera tolerate the Yanks signing K-Rod and relegating Rivera to setup in 2009 and 2010, unless he showed he couldn't effectively close any more? I don't think so.


Starting Pitcher issue:

Britt Burns

1989: 16-11, 4.19 ERA, 197.2 IP, 214 HA, 69 BB, 73 K
Signed 1-year deal w/HOU as FA for $158,500 on 4/16/89; signed 1-year extension for $241K on 7/14/89; signed ANOTHER 1-year extension for $241K on 11/20/89

1990: 28 starts in AAA, 2 starts in ML (I know he started in the minors this year because he was AAA pitcher of the month for April)
Signed YET ANOTHER 1-year extension for $241K on 11/21/89

1991: 6-3, 3.67 ERA, 68.2 IP, 66 HA, 28 BB, 25 K (w/ HOU...released on 6/12/91)
1991: 5-2, 4.40 ERA, 86 IP, 98 HA, 28 BB, 33 K (w/BOS...signed to minor league contract on 7/3/91, then signed a 1-year extension for $215K on 7/12/91, then signed ANOTHER extension on 12/23/91 for $250K)

By my count, that essentially gave him a 4 year, $881K contract with Houston that ran through the end of 1992, yet he only pitched 1 full year and part of another, both times fairly effectively. I know his BB/K ratio sucked, but I've seen pitchers in OOTP with horrible BB/K ratios not only continue to pitch, but pitch well. So I don't buy that the AI was smart enough to "see the writing on the wall" and dump him before he went downhill. If that's the case, then why 3 contract extensions? And in case you're wondering about ratings, he went from 5(5) / 16(16) / 10(10) on 1/1/89 to 4(4) / 15(15) / 10(10) on 1/1/92.

Keep in mind that in 1990, Houston lost 90 games and replaced his 200 IP in the rotation with a 36-year old guy who had a 4.71 ERA in 177 IP and a 38-year old guy with a 5.06 ERA in 151 IP. And in 1991, they won 84 and had a 30-year old guy with a 4.55 ERA in 184 IP and another with a 32-year old with a 4.83 ERA in 175 IP, yet they dumped a guy with a 3.67 ERA signed through the next year midway through the season.

The combination of demotions, releases, and contract extensions make no sense to me. At all.

[molson]

Outside of Saves, how did the replacement closer compare statistically to the established closer before the swap was made?

It sounds like your complaint isn't necessarily that stats weren't used enough to set the pitching roles, maybe just that the AI isn't respecting the inertia of team roles the way a real team might.

That might be an issue in its own right, but it wouldn't be one with the evaluation logic.

[Ksyrup]

On a separate note, I am going to run a new simulation with the modifiers RonCo suggests. I've definitely seen almost every good player peak at 23-25 and start to fall at about 27-30. As a result, through 1996, I only have 7 500+ HR hitters (4 of whom retired in the 1990s), 19 guys with 3K hits, 16 guys with 300 wins (and only Fernando Valenzuela reached that mark since 1956!), and only 6 guys with 3K+ strikeouts.

And to follow up on an issue I raised before OOTP9 came out regarding high-strikeout games...I have had a total of 25 games in which a pitcher struck out 15 or more batters, including only 1 18-K game and 2 17-K games.

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

turn it off completely - or decrease the numbers. i don't have a problem with 1 or 2 Japanese FA's showing up in the MLB free agency pool. i may just have to turn it off, too much talent isn't good.

i also am going to reduce the number of rounds in the ammy draft to 10. 20 is too much and i don't need so many 1 star prospects. i have way too many good players on my team and too many good prospects, not enough room to do something with my prospects.

I guarantee you if you decrease the PCM's for the Japanese leagues you will stop seeing so much talent headed from Japan to the MLB...I don't know if it will reduce the number of overall players (that can be controlled somewhat by salry structures within each league)- but it will reduce the number of stars effecting your other leagues.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

Outside of Saves, how did the replacement closer compare statistically to the established closer before the swap was made?

It sounds like your complaint isn't necessarily that stats weren't used enough to set the pitching roles, maybe just that the AI isn't respecting the inertia of team roles the way a real team might.

That might be an issue in its own right, but it wouldn't be one with the evaluation logic.

The replacement closers were good. I still have an evaluation issue, because outside of Burke, I don't see how you'd compare stats and decide to move Worrell and Henneman to the closer role over Lahti. Burke I can see, but then the question becomes how would a guy react to his team signing a guy and dumping him as closer given the stats Lahti put up, and when would a team actually do something like this? And again, remember, this is presuming the AI is looking at nothing but stats. It appears the game is taking ratings into account, because I don't see any reason why Worrell/Henneman would replace the existing closer.

Todd Worrell

Year before the swap
1985: 10-6, 1 SV, 2.82 ERA, 89.1 IP, 78 HA, 29 BB, 72 K

First year of the swap
1986: 5-5, 44 SV, 1.85 ERA, 63.1 IP, 48 HA, 22 BB, 69 K


Tim Burke

Year before the swap
1990: 4-5, 46 SV, 1.76 ERA, 66.1 IP, 51 HA, 16 BB, 57 K (w/HOU)

Year of the swap
1991: 3-7, 27 SV, 2.67 ERA, 64 IP, 55 HA, 25 BB, 56 K (signed w/STL as FA for 1 year)


Mike Henneman

Year before the swap
1992: 1-4, 18 SV, 2.32 ERA, 73.2 IP, 58 HA, 26 BB, 50K (w/SF)

Year of the swap
1993: 4-6, 37 SV, 1.55 ERA, 58 IP, 39 HA, 21 BB, 40 K (signed w/STL as FA for 1 year)

[Anthony]

what is PCM?

[Big Fo]

PCM = player creation modifier

It's in the league options somewhere.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

On a separate note, I am going to run a new simulation with the modifiers RonCo suggests. I've definitely seen almost every good player peak at 23-25 and start to fall at about 27-30. As a result, through 1996, I only have 7 500+ HR hitters (4 of whom retired in the 1990s), 19 guys with 3K hits, 16 guys with 300 wins (and only Fernando Valenzuela reached that mark since 1956!), and only 6 guys with 3K+ strikeouts.

And to follow up on an issue I raised before OOTP9 came out regarding high-strikeout games...I have had a total of 25 games in which a pitcher struck out 15 or more batters, including only 1 18-K game and 2 17-K games.

I did the same thing with RonCo's settings, with one of skydog's league templates. I had 40 15 K games in a 100 year span. I have 11 500 hitters, 26 have 3,000 hits, only 8 300 game winners (tougher with modern settings), and 39 pitchers with 3,000 K's. I know it's hard to compare that to a real historical league, but that'll give you an idea of what a fictional league comes up with Skydog's league totals settings and RonCo's aging modifiers.

[korme]

I can't find the willpower.. downloading ootp9 now.

[Neuqua]

Originally Posted by korme

I can't find the willpower.. downloading ootp9 now.

Ugh. I am still on the fence, but I know how you feel man.

[Neuqua]

There is no demo yet, right?

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

There is no demo yet, right?

thats what I am waiting for. Haven't seen one yet

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

what is PCM?

I run a Japanese league myself and have the PCM set at about .8 across the board. You can adjust the numbers yourself for your own liking.

My understanding of PCM is that if a player was born to have 10 in contact and 10 in power (out of ten), he would instead be a 8 in contact and 8 in power (assuming a .800 in power and contact in the PCM).

[Philliesfan980]

Hey Guys,

I just got back from a hellish business trip. I actually preordered the game, so it's no additional cost to me, but is this game worth installing? Or is it too fustrating to even bother with again?

[Ben E Lou]

Minimal frustration for fictional play.

[Anthony]

minimal frustration for MLB league if you just want to jump right in and have fun. if you want to be nitpicky then i can't think of many games that will give you a handjob right off the bat.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I run a Japanese league myself and have the PCM set at about .8 across the board. You can adjust the numbers yourself for your own liking.

My understanding of PCM is that if a player was born to have 10 in contact and 10 in power (out of ten), he would instead be a 8 in contact and 8 in power (assuming a .800 in power and contact in the PCM).

so the logic is if you make it so that Japanese players can't become superstars then less will become available in the MLB?

what happens if i just delete all other international leagues then except for my MLB league? will i still be able to get foreign born players popping up in my leagues as FA's or in my draft? cuz i don't have a problem shutting off all international leagues and then just creating one or two international players myself and manually putting them in as FA's.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

minimal frustration for MLB league if you just want to jump right in and have fun. if you want to be nitpicky then i can't think of many games that will give you a handjob right off the bat.

Yeah, I'm certainly not in the "nitpicky" group. If a guy gets pulled from a no hitter/perfect game, it's not a deal breaker for me

Ideally, I'd like to start with a MLB league from 1980 and go from there.

[Anthony]

then you will have fun. if you're going to complain about Closer Joe Smith, who was good for a few years and then for no reason was replaced with another closer, then you may not like this, or many other, games. when you realize that not every transaction you make is how a real GM would do it then you'll enjoy it more.

case in point, i always have my eye on the bottom line. a lot of transactions i do are to shave payroll and generate as big of a profit as possible. many people who play who just want to win championships. i want to win championships with a profit. that's two different things.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

then you will have fun. if you're going to complain about Closer Joe Smith, who was good for a few years and then for no reason was replaced with another closer, then you may not like this, or many other, games. when you realize that not every transaction you make is how a real GM would do it then you'll enjoy it more.

case in point, i always have my eye on the bottom line. a lot of transactions i do are to shave payroll and generate as big of a profit as possible. many people who play who just want to win championships. i want to win championships with a profit. that's two different things.

Good to hear, I'll install it today.

[Anthony]

i know this is sacrilege, but i've enjoyed this game more than the FOF series. the sheer amount of things i can customize and edit and still have great stats - that's amazing. i love the interface. i love the manager home page, that has everything i need to do and know available on one page (i still can't find the page that shows who's hot/cold). trading - on very difficult - is a big challenge. i consistently have to package multiple stud prospects with my older guys i want to get rid of in order to trade them. the pbp screen looks really nice. the fact that you can start from any season you want and play the game the way it was in that year, and generate stats specific to that year - is also amazing (i'm not a historical player, but i appreciate the ability to do so). sometimes it comes down to more than just "it may not look pretty, but the sim engine is great".

i hope OOTP9 makes some other developers change the way they look at things.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

then you will have fun. if you're going to complain about Closer Joe Smith, who was good for a few years and then for no reason was replaced with another closer, then you may not like this, or many other, games. when you realize that not every transaction you make is how a real GM would do it then you'll enjoy it more.

case in point, i always have my eye on the bottom line. a lot of transactions i do are to shave payroll and generate as big of a profit as possible. many people who play who just want to win championships. i want to win championships with a profit. that's two different things.

I'm not actually "playing" anything. I'm simply looking at the game and trying to determine whether it is simulating as true a baseball experience as possible. Issues like immediately demoting/releasing full-time, productive players from the year before and yanking effective players from their roles for no reason, and giving those same players multiple contract extensions before releasing them, are problematic. Or, starting pitchers with horrendous BB/K ratios still being allowed to pitch - also problematic. I suspect that if I got deeper into the game, the less I'd notice, frankly. But I'm looking at it from a 50K foot view and seeing high-level issues that don't allow the game to naturally flow like you'd expect a real baseball league to progress. I haven't managed or even watched a game play out in OOTP in probably 3 or 4 versions.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

minimal frustration for MLB league if you just want to jump right in and have fun. if you want to be nitpicky then i can't think of many games that will give you a handjob right off the bat.

I gotta agree 100% with HA here.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

minimal frustration for MLB league if you just want to jump right in and have fun. if you want to be nitpicky then i can't think of many games that will give you a handjob right off the bat.

Have you played using the set? It's bad, I'm sorry. Yes fictional leagues are great in the game, but the MLB roster set will make you pull your hair out. I just can't see how you are playing with that set and not seeing crazy stuff.

Fortunately there are some people in the roster forum working on a set right now. Apparently the first set with updated MLB/AAA players is set to be released shortly.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Have you played using the set? It's bad, I'm sorry. Yes fictional leagues are great in the game, but the MLB roster set will make you pull your hair out. I just can't see how you are playing with that set and not seeing crazy stuff.

Fortunately there are some people in the roster forum working on a set right now. Apparently the first set with updated MLB/AAA players is set to be released shortly.

It isn't as bad as you people make it sound. Yes it's not perfect, but the only reason there is a problem with it, is because you know who the players are and you expect them to perform a certain way.

[Ben E Lou]

Bingo. That's the inherent problem with "real" rosters in career sims that really aren't designed for replay at all.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Have you played using the set? It's bad, I'm sorry. Yes fictional leagues are great in the game, but the MLB roster set will make you pull your hair out. I just can't see how you are playing with that set and not seeing crazy stuff.

Fortunately there are some people in the roster forum working on a set right now. Apparently the first set with updated MLB/AAA players is set to be released shortly.

this is over the top. is it bad? no. you're looking too deep into this.

the MLB roster is made by a 3rd party. the roster set has nothing to do with OOTP9. you think i'm going to cry cuz Johan Santana finished 15-12 last season for me and went 3-3 in the playoffs? no. it could easily happen (i think he actually only won 15 games last year). *you* waste your time creating a definitive MLB roster set with full minor leagues and i'll happily pick it apart for you if you like. i know i don't have the desire nor time to create my own roster set, so i'll make do with the one that padresfan created and deal with any minor repurcussions it may cause. after a while all those players will be retired anyway and the universe will be populated with all game generated guys.

i see nothing that jumps out at me. nothing. "bad" to me is everytime i click on a certain button - the game crashes. that's bad. or everytime i sim the All-Star game the game freezes. that's bad. i don't know what you're looking for, but you must be actively looking for it. i don't understand all the fuss, but for those on the fence and plan on being a casual gamer then this game is great and is clearly the best baseball text sim, hands down.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

this is over the top. is it bad? no. you're looking too deep into this.

the MLB roster is made by a 3rd party. the roster set has nothing to do with OOTP9. you think i'm going to cry cuz Johan Santana finished 15-12 last season for me and went 3-3 in the playoffs? no. it could easily happen (i think he actually only won 15 games last year).

It might be made by a 3rd party, but it was advertised as part of the game.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i see nothing that jumps out at me. nothing. "bad" to me is everytime i click on a certain button - the game crashes. that's bad. or everytime i sim the All-Star game the game freezes. that's bad. i don't know what you're looking for, but you must be actively looking for it. i don't understand all the fuss, but for those on the fence and plan on being a casual gamer then this game is great and is clearly the best baseball text sim, hands down.

The set is half assed. You can read through the huge threads that were started the night the game came out to see the problems. They would still be going, but the folks on the board decided to lock them and not allow anymore threads on the topic (interesting to say the least).

From high prospects being way too good to other prospects having no ratings at all, the set comes across rushed. There were other errors with retired players that were actually active showing up. Guys out of position and a huge lack of effort with prospects. You can dig up the threads on the board and see what a lot of others had to say. That thread would probably have been 5 times the length if it hadn't been ceremoniously locked for no reason.

As for what I want, something that plays out more realistic than 6.5. That still has yet to happen. Sure there are a zillion new stats and the ability to build feeder leagues in Nairobi, but the development and roster management is still flawed. I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm not saying not to get it. It is a huge step forward in my opinion. But if this game was as great as you have been saying, people would actually be buying it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dangarion

It isn't as bad as you people make it sound. Yes it's not perfect, but the only reason there is a problem with it, is because you know who the players are and you expect them to perform a certain way.

My problems aren't so much based on expectations. A lot of players were added to the rosters with no ratings at all. Or with ratings that weren't theirs. Why put a player's name in the game if it really isn't him? Just leave him out.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My problems aren't so much based on expectations. A lot of players were added to the rosters with no ratings at all. Or with ratings that weren't theirs. Why put a player's name in the game if it really isn't him? Just leave him out.

Actually it wasn't a lot of players, it was about a total of about 30 players. The reason I know this.... Is because I was the person that mentioned it and posted screen captures of all the missing ratings.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post2507240

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post2507246

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post2507250

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post2507252

[DanGarion]

Dola,

And also in that thread people were complaining about prospects not being rated high enough which I couldn't confirm since the ratings looked good to me, not that they were low.

Either way the roster set isn't bad, it's a good starting point to be improved from and I feel it should have been thrown out to the community before it went live since it's evident the beta team didn't have the time or man power to honestly assess the roster set...

[Ksyrup]

I don't care what you say...this bothers the hell out of me.

I'm using RonCo's modifiers, including the 60/30/8/2 numbers. My first sim, I was trying for a setup where the AI didn't use ratings at all, to try to get a situation where the AI was reacting to bad performance as opposed to anticipating it from a drop in ratings. It didn't really work out that way. So this time, the AI is taking ratings into account. Still, the way this plays out bugs the shit out of me, because it is so unrealistic.

Nolan Ryan

1966: 15-8, 2.85 ERA, 217.2 IP, 179 HA, 105 BB, 226 K
1967: 20-9, 2.73 ERA, 273.1 IP, 186 HA, 133 BB, 323 K
1968: 18-13, 3.20 ERA, 270.1 IP, 210 HA, 115 BB, 257 K

Between 1968 and 1969, Ryan's ratings dropped pretty significantly - 4 points of Stuff, 3 Movement, 1 Control. In Spring Training, he pitched OK - 11.2 IP, 10 HA, 7/11 BB/K, and a 3.09 ERA. Yet after making 114 starts over the past 3 years - and at the ripe old age of 22 - he started 1969 in AAA. His AAA line:

15-2, 2.92 ERA, 157 IP, 113 HA, 59 BB, 153 K

He came up in September to the ML and posted these numbers:

2-0, 4.28 ERA, 27.1 IP, 21 HA, 27 BB, 30 K

Now, I grant that he clearly has lost something. But what I want this game to do is model what would happen IRL - there was nothing in his ST performance that suggested he would fall off a cliff to the extent that a team would take a #2 starter and throw him to AAA for an entire year before they saw the deterioration occur on the field. Even if the scouts looked at him and legitimately thought he had lost something, there's no way that would ever happen. If I was running this team, I wouldn't have done that. I would have given him 3 or 4 April starts, checked for decline, and made a move if I felt it was necessary based on the combination of stats and ratings.

I just want the AI to stop anticipating declines and let the numbers dictate the move!

OK, I'll stop bitching now.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why put a player's name in the game if it really isn't him?

*chuckles*

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't care what you say...this bothers the hell out of me.

I'm using RonCo's modifiers, including the 60/30/8/2 numbers. My first sim, I was trying for a setup where the AI didn't use ratings at all, to try to get a situation where the AI was reacting to bad performance as opposed to anticipating it from a drop in ratings. It didn't really work out that way. So this time, the AI is taking ratings into account. Still, the way this plays out bugs the shit out of me, because it is so unrealistic.

Nolan Ryan

1966: 15-8, 2.85 ERA, 217.2 IP, 179 HA, 105 BB, 226 K
1967: 20-9, 2.73 ERA, 273.1 IP, 186 HA, 133 BB, 323 K
1968: 18-13, 3.20 ERA, 270.1 IP, 210 HA, 115 BB, 257 K

Between 1968 and 1969, Ryan's ratings dropped pretty significantly - 4 points of Stuff, 3 Movement, 1 Control. In Spring Training, he pitched OK - 11.2 IP, 10 HA, 7/11 BB/K, and a 3.09 ERA. Yet after making 114 starts over the past 3 years - and at the ripe old age of 22 - he started 1969 in AAA. His AAA line:

15-2, 2.92 ERA, 157 IP, 113 HA, 59 BB, 153 K

He came up in September to the ML and posted these numbers:

2-0, 4.28 ERA, 27.1 IP, 21 HA, 27 BB, 30 K

Now, I grant that he clearly has lost something. But what I want this game to do is model what would happen IRL - there was nothing in his ST performance that suggested he would fall off a cliff to the extent that a team would take a #2 starter and throw him to AAA for an entire year before they saw the deterioration occur on the field. Even if the scouts looked at him and legitimately thought he had lost something, there's no way that would ever happen. If I was running this team, I wouldn't have done that. I would have given him 3 or 4 April starts, checked for decline, and made a move if I felt it was necessary based on the combination of stats and ratings.

I just want the AI to stop anticipating declines and let the numbers dictate the move!

OK, I'll stop bitching now.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as full reliance on stats. And to reiterate, this is an area where departing from realism makes for a much more challenging game. I don't want the AI teams playing guys who are going to drop off in performance, so if there's any way they can peek ahead, I'm 100% in favor of it.

[Anthony]

one thing i don't understand is why does my scout say a guy is rated one way, but the OSA numbers show up as something really different? which one is correct?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm not sure there's such a thing as full reliance on stats. And to reiterate, this is an area where departing from realism makes for a much more challenging game. I don't want the AI teams playing guys who are going to drop off in performance, so if there's any way they can peek ahead, I'm 100% in favor of it.

Maybe the difference here is that I'm simming this and not playing it, so I'm not looking for a challenge. I'm looking at a game that I want to simulate the history of baseball. And in the history of baseball, I can't think of many teams who would immediately stick one of their best pitchers in the minors for an entire season simply because their scouts said the guy's lost something off his stuff. IMO, it ruins the continuity of the game and the realism.

I understand your point, but I'd rather the AI be reactive than proactive, frankly. And unless he's got someone lined up to take that spot, usually this doesn't end up benefiting the AI anyway. He replaces the guy with a crap or mediocre pitcher, unless he gets lucky and just happens to have someone ready to step in. So I don't see it as necessarily creating a more competitive game.

[Ksyrup]

I'm assuming this is an historical replay issue only, but is anyone else seeing a number of players come up at 18-20 and completely dominate? I know that's been a general problem for a while, but it seems worse this time around for some reason. I'm seeing a bunch of guys put up great numbers their rookie year (look at Nolan Ryan), and then either through injury or just because, tail off pretty significantly a few years later. Ryan is one of those. No major injury to speak of, just 3 great years and then off the cliff.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm assuming this is an historical replay issue only, but is anyone else seeing a number of players come up at 18-20 and completely dominate? I know that's been a general problem for a while, but it seems worse this time around for some reason. I'm seeing a bunch of guys put up great numbers their rookie year (look at Nolan Ryan), and then either through injury or just because, tail off pretty significantly a few years later. Ryan is one of those. No major injury to speak of, just 3 great years and then off the cliff.

That really sounds like the subject we just spoke about like a page back in this thread.. With the conversation on player development speed and such. Seems currently that OOTP's peak for player's ability is about 3 years too early with default settings, so the suggested ones in that PDF file would push it back a bit till they were a little older. Might be a different issue with historical replay though, but that is what it sounds like the same thing at least to me on surface.

[Ksyrup]

I'm using RonCo's modifiers.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm using RonCo's modifiers.

Oh.. then guess it is a good thing or they would dominate as 16 year olds!

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm not sure there's such a thing as full reliance on stats. And to reiterate, this is an area where departing from realism makes for a much more challenging game. I don't want the AI teams playing guys who are going to drop off in performance, so if there's any way they can peek ahead, I'm 100% in favor of it.

See- I just don't get this. Why would I want to play a game (forget about the fact that it is totally unrealistic) where the AI can anticipate a talent drop and "peek ahead"; effectively cheating when I do not have the same luxury (nor would I want it). I'm 100% against it....I guess it's just a difference of gaming styles- but there is no way you can argure that this resembles the actual game of baseball in any way, shape, or form. We can agree that it may be hard to model- but I can't understand those that defend it on the premise that it's a better way to play.

Taking this to it's logical conclusion- would you rather that the AI not sign the league's best 25 year old shortstop to a 5 year deal knowing that in year two of the deal his ratings would implode and he is going to more closely resemble Buddy Biancalana than Jimmy Rollins? That's not my definition of AI.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

See- I just don't get this. Why would I want to play a game (forget about the fact that it is totally unrealistic) where the AI can anticipate a talent drop and "peek ahead"; effectively cheating when I do not have the same luxury (nor would I want it). I'm 100% against it....I guess it's just a difference of gaming styles- but there is no way you can argure that this resembles the actual game of baseball in any way, shape, or form. We can agree that it may be hard to model- but I can't understand those that defend it on the premise that it's a better way to play.

It's only "peeking ahead" in terms of probable performance on the field, by using the ratings for the players. A human player can do the same thing, but we'd typically rather actually see a player suck on the field before we pull him, rather than see his ratings drop first and not let him back on the field.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Taking this to it's logical conclusion- would you rather that the AI not sign the league's best 25 year old shortstop to a 5 year deal knowing that in year two of the deal his ratings would implode and he is going to more closely resemble Buddy Biancalana than Jimmy Rollins? That's not my definition of AI.

That's not what the AI is doing all, unless I totally misunderstand.

The AI sees in spring training that the a player's ratings has slipped (just like a human player could see). Rather than hurt their team by putting that guy with reduced ratings on the field, they bench or demote him. In a game, that's probably the smarter thing to do. It would be the smart thing to do in real life too, if you had "ratings" that were reliable.