Fictional Rosters

[Go!Cubs!Go!]

Re: Fictional Rosters

I'm playing spring training...ten games straight. And I care... That's why these rosters are sick.

Ive done edits on things...but that is just fine. So awesome.

[Knight165]

Re: Fictional Rosters

Contemplating using these as a base for port of the Franchise Stars rosters I did for OOTP a few years back. Would be great to play with the greats in a visual setting.

I've always contended EA Sports or these guys could make a killing releasing a fictional setting, fully editable and customizable baseball game. I don't get why they don't, particularly EA, which was knocked out of the game solely by MLB licensing.

Why do you think SCEA gave us the ability to import over anyone?

(hint...prompting by guys like us!)

M.K.
Knight165

[GForce22]

Re: Fictional Rosters

Why do you think SCEA gave us the ability to import over anyone?

(hint...prompting by guys like us!)

M.K.
Knight165

I just think it would be a great idea, wouldn't cost them much to make (hell, SCEA could keep the same game and just strip MLB Licensing and make new stadiums with customization options).

Anyway, as for me doing the franchise rosters, it's more the time of the editing that stops me from doing it. I have all the data from my work for OOTP. It's just the inputting. If there was a simple enter the stats then spit out the ratings sheet it would make life easier. May just test doing one team of it and see how much time it takes.

[sluggbugg]

Re: Fictional Rosters

I've always contended EA Sports or these guys could make a killing releasing a fictional setting, fully editable and customizable baseball game. I don't get why they don't, particularly EA, which was knocked out of the game solely by MLB licensing.

I don't know what the sales figures were for those unlicensed football games that were released, but it has been tried in that sport and I assume not very profitable since I don't believe we ever got sequels. I could be wrong on that. However if you have a company like EA that plans on getting back into the baseball market in the next year or two, it might be feasible to release a version like that to get the series started. I'm sure some companies have crunched the numbers on it.

Of course back in the day you had Baseball Stars that was fictional and pretty customizable, for its time period, and it was pretty successful.

[statdude]

Re: Fictional Rosters

So I downladed the roster yesterday, and I think that there is too many good closers and not enough good hitters. Since school, is over after next week's finals, I could help by editing some of the rosters if you guys would like.

[raleigh mcclure]

Re: Fictional Rosters

So I downladed the roster yesterday, and I think that there is too many good closers and not enough good hitters. Since school, is over after next week's finals, I could help by editing some of the rosters if you guys would like.

That's one of a number of things listed on the first page of this thread that I intend to go back and edit. I'm busy really until mid June, so if you want to take a shot at editing these rosters, feel free.

The method I've undertaken is to model the ratings after an SCEA roster. I went to the trouble of creating a spreadsheet based on the OSFM roster. I entered the ratings of several hundred position players from the AL. I put in pretty much any player with MLB experience and many of the 'A' and 'B' prospects. It took quite a long time just to do 15 teams and a handful of starters from each of the NL teams. What that spreadsheet allows me to do is divide up both the SCEA spreadsheet and the Fictional spreadsheet by position and player role, then to compare things like averages for ratings across a position, tallies of how many players have, say, a speed rating in the 80's, and so on.

Then I've just gone in and made some tweaks to the Fictional players based on the findings, along with some things that I already knew about the fictional spreadsheet (things I've covered elsewhere in this thread) such as that the players closer to average have much more comparable ratings to the SCEA roster than do players near the end of the range, i.e. the lowest and highest rated players. That's why you're seeing the top-of-the-line hitters on our spreadsheet that don't compare well to the top-of-the-line hitters on an SCEA roster. I also made a mistake in terms of the overall numbers of pitchers at certain roles (elite relievers and closers chief among them, but also including "elite" starting pitchers) so that there are just more great pitchers on our roster than there are great hitters.

My solution is primarily just to increase the ratings of some number of above average hitters and to decrease the ratings for some number of pitchers, while leaving in place at least some of the better pitchers.

Of course, our roster doesn't need to resemble an SCEA roster, and doing so would make our roster an unnecessary reproduction of an already existing roster. An SCEA roster is balanced, however, and makes for a good model in terms of the number of players with ratings in certain ranges, and how those ratings follow particular patterns for certain types of players, etc.

The list of all of the things I intend to look at is on the first page of this thread, the problem being that I don't really have much time for another month or so to get back at this.

Some of the relievers and closers being too good and some of the hitters in our league who are just above average but ought to be elite are just the tip of the iceberg. Most of these results are the quirks that arise ought of mass generating hundreds of players. Lacking incredible algorithms, it's just impossible to generate hundreds of completely satisfactory players without editing each of them individually. That's why I intend to spend time on individual players at least for the top 20 or so at each position, then to spend less time on the next 10 to 20 players. For those players, I was planning on making broader changes along more general lines. Then, because the triple A players are a bit too good, I was going to make much more sweeping changes to them just to bring them generally lower.

So Statdude, if you'd like to take a whack at an edit, that's just fine by me. Hopefully the information you can find on the first page of this thread, the information written above, and the other things I've written over the course of this thread will be of some use to you.

[sluggbugg]

Re: Fictional Rosters

That's one of a number of things listed on the first page of this thread that I intend to go back and edit. I'm busy really until mid June, so if you want to take a shot at editing these rosters, feel free.

Hopefully the information you can find on the first page of this thread and the other things I've written over the course of this thread will be of some use to you.

My man is in serious "paper writing mode" at the moment. You can tell, because that whole wall of text could have been shortened down to these couple of sentences.

[statdude]

Re: Fictional Rosters

I'll make some progress later on tonite. I'll look at the best players at each position and such as. Ill try to get a lot done on Sat. Sunday is a little busy.

[TripleThreat1973]

Re: Fictional Rosters

So I downladed the roster yesterday, and I think that there is too many good closers and not enough good hitters. Since school, is over after next week's finals, I could help by editing some of the rosters if you guys would like.

I'm just curious as to what this is based on.

Whether you're using SCEA or Knight's rosters, for most teams the closer is the highest rated player, sometimes even the likes of Mike Gonzales or Kevin Gregg.

That's because closers often have the highest K/9 ratings (and stats), as well as, lowish H/9, lowish HR/9 and good clutch ratings. Many of them often have what is essentially a very hard to hit pitch.

The trade off is the stamina and lack of very good secondary pitches (non-specialty pitches).

Anyway, I was just curious as to what is leading to the perceptions ... the players' "value bar", the actual ratings, game results in franchise play, etc.

In SCEA's online roster, Kyle Farnsworth is TBR's 4th best player, ahead of BJ Upton, Zobrist, Shields, Hellickson, etc. Obviously that does not mean Farnsworth(less) is going to outperform them. Brian Fuentes (CP) is much higher rated than Brett Anderson (SP) and higher than Trevor Cahill. That doesn;t mean the "ratings are screwed up".

Meanwhile, Roy Halladay's ratings aren't that spectacular:

H/9: 60
HR/9: 65
K/9: 68
BB/9: 90

But, here's where it comes through:

Stamina: 99
Clutch: 91

Clutch trumps everything. It's like an "overall quality" type of rating.

So, if one were to go in and edit Halladay's "Per 9" rating to the 80's or wherever they think they belong .... you'd basically be making him into an unhittable Terminator.

Matt Holliday has contact ratings of 81/80, power ratings of 70/72. Yes, THAT, Matt Holliday.

[JoeJoeJoeJoeJoeJoe]

Re: Fictional Rosters

Wow, so I am feeling good in Seattle; swept the A's for their first weekend encounter

(side note: this uni thing is incredible, I have the A's wearing their road throwback yellow/green uni tops, with hats to match for color, and their throwback white bottoms...looks absolutley tremendous...just wish they had the same version in green, but being able to mix/match...wow!)

Well, the Rangers are up next. They blow me out 11-4, but Tuesday was mine and I earned a serious comeback win something like 6-4. Wednesday was the same deal, came back and tied it at 3, but SLAM, 2-run homer for them in the 12th or so. Dang! Good series, but now we lost 2 of 3 to a rival.

Then, Cleveland, and home in Seattle at last. Very tight game, they win late, though I did mount a comeback. Next night, fell behind 2-0 by the 6th, tied it, then my idiot LF (best everyday player on team...who'd've thunk it) blows a fly ball off the wall he could've caught. They win 3-2. Then a slugfest, ended up 11-6, but at one point I was behind 7-1, made it 9-6, but could do no more.

Now, Toronto!

Ouch, started 3-0, now I am 4-5.

One thing I thought was that these rosters were too anemic from the looks, but 11-4, 11-6, 6-3 with late innning HR's, coming back 3 times already to tie or come pretty close. This is a lot of fun, and I am bummed to be swept at home...but Toronto will feel my wrath (I hope)!

I did a fantasy draft, and I am listed as the best team, and hitting and pitching are top 3, but one thing I don't know is the identity of my team, or the others. Kind of fun, and these rosters have stared well.

I do regret not playing Spring Training (or at least the last 10 days or so) as some others here have commented on. I am so used to skipping it (I love that they have it, and that it plays like Spring...kind of...constant pitcher changes, Pinch-hitters all over, etc) because I am just so impatient to get my seasons started.

Now I wish I had just to get a feel for different teams, their identities, my identity, and maybe I would've had some position battles.

MUST PLAY MORE!!!

[statdude]

Re: Fictional Rosters

Well, The Angels barely have a farm system, but their lineup is in their prime, including the best RF in the league.

[sluggbugg]

Re: Fictional Rosters

You will be happy with the MLB squad of the Angels, I can't really comment on the farm clubs as I don't remember but, they can MASH!

[sluggbugg]

Re: Fictional Rosters

I know their has been a lot of talk about low ratings but I have to say, you play some games with these rosters and you will see some offense! These higher rated pitchers don't necessarily have an advantage over these guys for whatever reason. There must be some good hitting coaches in out fantasy world. lol

[raleigh mcclure]

Re: Fictional Rosters

I'm just curious as to what this is based on.

Whether you're using SCEA or Knight's rosters, for most teams the closer is the highest rated player, sometimes even the likes of Mike Gonzales or Kevin Gregg.

That's because closers often have the highest K/9 ratings (and stats), as well as, lowish H/9, lowish HR/9 and good clutch ratings. Many of them often have what is essentially a very hard to hit pitch.

The trade off is the stamina and lack of very good secondary pitches (non-specialty pitches).

Anyway, I was just curious as to what is leading to the perceptions ... the players' "value bar", the actual ratings, game results in franchise play, etc.

In SCEA's online roster, Kyle Farnsworth is TBR's 4th best player, ahead of BJ Upton, Zobrist, Shields, Hellickson, etc. Obviously that does not mean Farnsworth(less) is going to outperform them. Brian Fuentes (CP) is much higher rated than Brett Anderson (SP) and higher than Trevor Cahill. That doesn;t mean the "ratings are screwed up".

Meanwhile, Roy Halladay's ratings aren't that spectacular:

H/9: 60
HR/9: 65
K/9: 68
BB/9: 90

But, here's where it comes through:

Stamina: 99
Clutch: 91

Clutch trumps everything. It's like an "overall quality" type of rating.

So, if one were to go in and edit Halladay's "Per 9" rating to the 80's or wherever they think they belong .... you'd basically be making him into an unhittable Terminator.

Matt Holliday has contact ratings of 81/80, power ratings of 70/72. Yes, THAT, Matt Holliday.

TT,

The thing that helped me get an overall sense of the roster was to start a fantasy draft in franchise with our roster and then start one with a normal SCEA roster. Then just note things like the "overall bars" for each position. The difference is most striking for SCEA relievers compared to our fictional relievers. As I've explained several times elsewhere, when I went through to try to curb some of the reliever ratings (and the ratings for many of the set-up relievers were nearly as good as that of the closers before I edited the pitching spreadsheet) I lowered them according to averages of pitchers by role. However, I didn't get a good count for how many Daniel Bards there were, so just about every team in our roster has one or two RP's that could be closers just in terms of overall talent. If you compare the relievers via the fantasy draft, that should be fairly clear.

I think the numbers of SP's and closers is much more subtle. And I'm not sure why you're arguing against raising up Halladay-esque numbers. I don't think any of the fictional pitchers need to be increased. I think the top 5 to 10 starters can stay where they are but the SCEA roster seems to taper off a bit faster from the Lincecum's and Halladay's of the league.

So, the problem isn't really with the ratings for any individual pitcher, per se, the problem has much more to do with the number of pitchers in certain "categories", i.e. league "ace", "minor ace", "above average" and so on.

I think the top closers in our roster are just fine, but there are more "elite" closers in our league than in the SCEA roster. It's not much. It's a subtle difference. I was probably going to make changes to just 10 to 15 starters and closers.

However, that subtle difference shows up more when you look at our position players. The SCEA roster, in the fantasy draft window, has several players with full "overall" bars and then several more players nearly at that level at every position. The fictional roster, on the other hand, had one player "William Griffin"--LF for the Orioles--that could be considered at that level of talent. For the position players, I was just going to bump up the talent of the top 10 to 15 players at each position not to replicate the ratings of the SCEA roster, but just to more closely approximate the sorts of players at the top in an SCEA roster.

So, I think the combination of those two things, the higher overall number of pitchers, especially relievers, at better levels, and the slightly lower ratings of the fictional roster's best position players, just combines to make our roster slightly lower.

I think this showed up in there only being, what was it, 20?, players that hit .300 in a test sim that SluggBugg ran.

What I figured, TT, is that your spreadsheet controlled well for league averages and ranges, but what about the spread? Or, in other words, how did you make sure that certain numbers of players would end up in different percentiles?

[statdude]

Re: Fictional Rosters

TT,

However, that subtle difference shows up more when you look at our position players. The SCEA roster, in the fantasy draft window, has several players with full "overall" bars and then several more players nearly at that level at every position. The fictional roster, on the other hand, had one player "William Griffin"--LF for the Orioles--that could be considered at that level of talent. For the position players, I was just going to bump up the talent of the top 10 to 15 players at each position not to replicate the ratings of the SCEA roster, but just to more closely approximate the sorts of players at the top in an SCEA roster.

This. There are at least 10-15 full bar position players on the SCEA while we have one on the fiction. Also, the farm systems that I saw were pretty weak. You have the right amount of A's, but fall short with some of the B's that are not there.