OOTP vs STRAT-O-MATIC
 

I am curious as to what players for OOTP compare there game with S-O-M, this is for those who have played both. I have been playing strat since 1969 and truly find no faults in it. I don't care about graphics I just want close NOT exact statistical accuracy. I only play tournaments and have played the same couple of projects every year. I never play full seasons but I have replaced pitching staffs from former teams like the 86 Mets staff on the 62 Mets. I love the way strat plays and the ease of creating any league you can come up with. But for fun I was wondering what OOTP was like. I have played Action PC and do not like the baseball but love there football.

Roll Tide! :-) I have played both, OOTP since OOTP4 and Strato-O-matic since... A long Time ago with dice ;-)

To me, a big difference is the 'career' mode of OOTP, players get better, then get old before your eyes.... 'Season card' of Strato does not replicate this....

I played Strat since I was like 8 when my father let me start playing with his 1970 set. I got my own game for the first time when the 1980 set was released. Strat doesn't even come close to the accuracy of OOTP. Maybe it has changed but I used to hate how things like the hit & run were handled in Strat. I also hated how it was impossible to play out a whole season yourself. You also couldn't have wet fields or windy days in Strat. Overall, even with whatever faults OOTP has, Strat doesn't even come close. It is like comparing an abacus to a computer.

Played Strat C&D since late 70s' and OOTP since Version 12. Two different games (one you understand where the results come from through understanding the board game) vs. OOTP where you don't really see the engine visible. OOTP value is 100 x more than Strat in terms of what you get for your money$. You can buy the OOTP17 game for less than the price of a season roster from Strat. Other benefits of OOTP is the fictional play and the depth of the universe involved in terms of feeder leagues, ind leagues. You just can't compare the games. This is not even taking into account the visuals & finances.

In my books, Strat would be best for replays - actual transactions. OOTP for pretty much everything else.

My first Strat game was the 1969 season. I continued playing into the mid-80's and loved the game playing out the full season for my favorite team and compiling stats. I dreamed of having a game that would play a full season, with standings and stats, though I never thought it would happen.

Around 1990 I found Lance Haffner games and Full Count Baseball (is that the correct name?). Season replays with standings and leaders, I was in heaven :)

2002 I read of a game called OOTP and bought version 4. Similar to Haffner's game except it was a baseball world that "lived". Standings, stats, leaders, and players aged, had a career arch, and eventually retired. Whoa :woohoo:

I loved Strat, I really did! Having said that I'd never go back to it, OOTP is the ultimate baseball game without a doubt.

I agree whole heartily with the above; I played SOM from the mid '60's up to the PC game. I discovered OOTP last year and cannot see myself ever going back to SOM. The depth, options, and the statistical accuracy (though not exact) of OOTP continue to amaze me; I think I am just scratching the surface because I learn new things almost every day!

SOM is good but in my opinion OOTP is far superior.

I have played both. I still love both. Strat is still good to me as a board game of baseball i play some with my son. However OOTP is by far the way to go if you are into continuous franchise modes.

I also play MLB the show and dream of the day when the two become one. But that is a different subject. LOL!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another thing that is way different is the community. If I had posted this topic on the SOM Forum it would have been banned LOL

Strat-o-matic (assuming you are talking about Computer Baseball)

Pros:

- A very robust play-by-play engine. Really, it's one of the best - if that matters to you

- Up until recently, the 3D model for play outcomes was better.

- You understand more of how the game works because you can peak inside the game engine. No debate on whether or not "the game is fixed! WAH WAH WAH" etc.

- User interface is straight forward, very short learning curve.

- Very accurate stat keeping

Cons:

- game is expensive. And they price gouge you for extra features like color stadium backdrops, past seasons, etc.

- You can only sim past seasons. That's pretty much it. No fictional, no customization, you can only play the game one way.

In short, once you go OOTP, you don't go back. There's a steep learning curve going from Strat to OOTP and you may get frustrated with the with the way OOTP works at first, but there's so many ways to play OOTP and features that keep OOTP entertaining, you can be amused forever.

Once you finish a season in SOM, it's kind of like, "meh... I'm done."

That said, there are some things SOM does really well that I'd wish OOPT would do. But those are small trade offs.

I played Strat-o-Matic a lot (PC and card/dice version) before I found OOTP, which immediately blew me away.

Here are the perks of each one:

In a lot of ways Strat is still the way to go if you want to do a single-season replay and have the players perform accurately. One thing I enjoy about Strat (especially card/dice) is there's no secret to the game coding - the cards are right there for you to see so you know the probabilities. And in the computer game, there's a 'Delete last play' option that I'd really like OOTP to copy. It would be handy when you make a mistake and hit '1' one too many times and the pitcher bats or something like that...

But in every other facet OOTP is far superior. The ability to play historical over several seasons is awesome. The modern-day setup is unmatched. The ability to create fictional leagues is great. You've got to trust the coding a little more because there's no way to see how things are calculated, but I've played way, way, way more OOTP than I care to admit and the game engine is second to none.

Anyway, I still like Strat. It's just much more limited than OOTP.

We should provide detail to Matt and Markus. Who knows what could happen.:)

This is not a shot at SOM or other games, but a question of pure curiosity. Whenever I engage a person who plays Diamond Mine, Action PC Baseball, SOM or other similar game, the minute I say I'm playing OOTP they cease communications. The most recent occurrence was my cousins son a huge baseball fan. We reconnected on Facebook and he flooded me with SOM posts. I told him about OOTP and that was the last baseball post we've had. Other connections have been similar.

What are people afraid of?:confused:

It's just a different type of game. I don't think the people who play the replay games such as SOM consider OOTP to be a direct competitor. I think OOTP is pretty good for replaying seasons, considering that you don't have to pay $20 or more for every season you replay. The replay games are probably still a little better if accuracy is the goal, and may always be simply due to the limitations of the database. But the days when there was a huge gap in accuracy are long gone.

I have four baseball games on my hard drive right now. If I want to play an open engine game, I play Replay. It also seems to simulate pitching and defense a little better than the others. If I want detailed PBP, I'll probably play Diamond Mind. And if I want to look at careers, I'll boot up OOTP. I play out games with the career line for every player on the screen. None of the others can do that. Action is the fourth game, and it's kind of a compromise with decent graphics, good accuracy, and just OK play by play. But it has season disks going back farther than my other replay games, and it gets some time as well. All four have unique qualities that make them fun to play

Of course, if you're not into straight replays, the others aren't even trying to compete, and OOTP is going to win every time.

Kind of an apples and oranges comparison, IMO. At least with the card version of Strat. Fun game, been playing on and off since 1985, but stats keeping and career progression are way easier with OOTP.

I've never played computer Strat, so I can't vouch for it, but I'd most likely say mods = edge to OOTP, even if all else is equal.

Tell me what you like about Diamond Mind's PbP. I know you'll see something cute every now and then, but the last time I played DMB, I remember how quickly the PbP became repetitive. Markus has not really added anything significant to the PbP in at least a few years. I'd like him to hear suggestions from others, not just myself. (It might be better to create a separate thread, I suppose.)

I saw stuff on Diamond Mind today that I don't believe I have ever seen before, and I've played literally thousands of DMB games out. There's just so much of it my mind can't hold it all, and it has this trick of holding back pbp until you start a different season. There's player specific and park specific pbp hidden in there. Nicknames as well, something OOTP could do in its pbp but doesn't.

Believe me, I'm not criticizing OOTP's pbp. It's so much better than SOM and Action that there's no comparison. I think it's the second best in the business. But DMB has spent years adding more and more and more. OOTP needs to do the same on an annual basis. It's a matter of quantity. The more you have, the less repetitive it will be.

Nicknames - check
Player-specific pbp - check
Park-specific pbp - check

All of these suggestions -- and more -- have been made multiple times. After a while, it seems pointless to keep asking. :(

1. Bullpen Management is by far superior. You can set up your bullpen based on the game situation and rank your RPs in what order you want them to appear.

2. Just being able to back track each and every play to understand how it was derived. I don't see that ever being an option in OOTP.

One thing to remember. Games like SOM and DMB are limited in scope, so developers can concentrate their attention on a smaller feature set. OOTP is massive in scope. The developers cannot possibly enhance all parts of the game equally each iteration. It takes more time. But the number of features, OOTP vs the other games, must be 10:1 in ratio.

I haven't seen anyone discuss lefty/right splits. Strat-O-Matic if far superior there - otherwise OOTP is much better bang for the buck.

Also is widely abused in league play. So the + is also a negative

Here is how the SOMBB bullpen logic works.

http://usfleagues.net/abl/sombullpenlogic.PNG

#1.
You set up various logics for the computer to use ie., A through H in this example.

#2
For each Logic you specify the Outs in the game you want the logic to correspond too ie., 24 to 26 is for the 9th inning closer situation & also the SCORE Scenario of the game.

#3.
For each Logic you specify what type of batter it applies for Left, Right, Switch, Reverse L, Reverse R (Reverse meaning a Lefty hitter better versus Lefties)

#4. Then you can decide to FORCE regardless of situation either a Yes or No. Usually reserved for CL situations only.

#5. Then you can label each Logic ie., LOGIC ID = A = SAVE GAME

Then what is cool is that you can for each of the LOGICS specify the PECKING order of RPs you want to appear in that scenario ie. This is very helpful when facing a Lefty batter and ensuring you don't want your worst RP vs. LEFTY to come in 1st or 2nd etc..

I hope this quick summary is helpful.

It was confusing at first launch but, I am pretty sure people that play SOMBB try to use it now.

Jason

Because of the small sample size, a season's worth of L/R data can be very misleading. Generic splits, as I recall from a lengthy article I read somewhere, are probably closer to real abilities (in most cases). But I'll let the experts duke it out. ;)

Action PC Baseball also allows the user more control over bullpen usage. Kind of like what you described here. OOTP could definitely be improved in this area.

What is superior about Strat's handling of splits?

Back in the late 80s, my brother and I played SOM so much our mother threw the game away. :) I was an early OOTP adopter, and I have to say that for the last 8-9 editions of OOTP, OOTP blows away SOM on almost every dimension. Want to replay a single season? OOTP can do that. Want to run a crazy fictional league on Mars? OOTP can do that. Want to start an MLB league now and then let it develop organically with realistic financials? OOTP can do that.

Some say SOM is "more accurate" for single-season replays, but from the perspective of a statistician, it is a somewhat misleading form of accuracy. SOM will give a pitcher a low BABIP in a year if that's what the pitcher actually received that year. But we know that pitchers, with few exceptions, don't control BABIP. So SOM will replay a season pretty closely with the "right" proportions of popouts, hits allowed, etc., but won't actually let a season replay as it "could have" played out had pitchers not been unlucky with their fielding, say. In terms of big-picture realism, OOTP actually has SOM beat, because OOTP accords better with baseball theory (how we know the game actually works). I still have a sentimental attachment to SOM and maybe I'll pick up the card game at some point to play with my daughter, but the only game I would play for myself is OOTP.

It is based on actual performance, as opposed to being random, so lefties who really cannot hit lefties will perform poorly in SOM based on the real splits.

In some cases, I suppose that is true, but there are extremes that OOTP will ignore (i.e Andy Van Slyke comes to mind)

I did not realize OOTP's splits were random.

:confused:Not sure I understand this random thing. Do batter pitcher ratings not produce the results? My long time leagues have seemingly excellent (realistic) splits vs the era they are set up in.

Without knowing for sure, I think OOTP uses generic splits, and there's a case to be made that 90% of the time those are more predictive anyway, and they can't be exploited like small sample size splits can.

When you create a historical game with OOTP if you select the option for random splits, the game will definitely have excellent (realistic) splits vs the era they are set up in. They just won't be player specific. Think of everyone's favorite Detroit Tiger Anthony Gose in 2015. He hit .265 and had a OBP of .330 against righties(126 games). Against lefties he hit an amazing .192 with a spectacular .272 OBP (47 games). So you can clearly see why the Tigers platooned him with Rajai Davis playing against lefties. Strat will rate him accordingly. OOTP will assign him random splits, so there's no guaranty he will be so awful against pitchers that throw with the wrong arm. Hope that makes sense.

Well, the play-by-play would be one. It really is awesome how they do it. It's team specific, dynamic, and very colorful. You can give the announcers names. The actual real life play-by-play announcers for each team are included in the game.

There are preset anecdotes about players, coaches and all personel that are incorporated into the text; the best example I can give is: imagine if the news stories in OOTP where part of the in game play-by-play. It also updates you on scores and specific playoff races as the season moves along. It's very easy to modify it as well.

I wish OOTPs play-by-play could have that much richness to it, but I'm not sure its possible.

I must admit though, I haven't used the full pbp option in OOTP in a long time because I use 3D exclusively. In the case of 3D, having a pbp module in OOTP may be a moot point now because you actually see the plays happen, a la Earl Weaver Baseball which had no play-by-play

Its also easier to batch select then modify players, copy and paste players to different teams and leagues, or you can copy an entire team and move it. (imagine if you were able to copy your favorite fictional team and paste it to any other league or season)

(BTW, this was the hardest thing I had to get past when switching from SOM to OOTP. That lack of functionality in OOTP drove me bonkers. I obviously got past it though ;) )

SOM also has an undo/redo feature for just about anything you do in the game. It saves your butt at times. I wish OOTP had that. There's also that great "delete last play" function for when you screw up a pitching change or substitution, but its also too tempting to use for cheating!

All that said, I'm not sure its possible to have all those features in OOTP based on the way the game functions. OOTP is an entirely different animal. It took me a long time to realize that.

yes!

All my players are fictional so I can only assume their ratings determine the splits which by my analysis are accurate via statistical output , therefore, not generic. Picking nits I know, but when comparing games we should consider a new player may be mislead by incorrect claims that something works only one way.

Just picking nits but aren't all fictional players just random in nature?

You may want to pick your nits with Markus then. Go create a historical game. The very first screen of the setup wizard has a checkbox that reads Generate random L/R Splits. You have the option to select whether you want the game to create proper lefty/righty splits or no ratings at all. We should also consider that a new user, one that is coming to the game from Strat or one of the other replay games, may want to know how OOTP goes about creating splits for historical player and by historical I mean players that we can prove actually spent time on earth.

So this is a good reason why Strat is very good for replays. So are we saying here for the 2017 release of the OOTP game that the splits for L/R for the REAL MLB players are all random? I don't play current and only have played fictional in OOTP.

Not in the current MLB rosters, though there they're generally projections based somewhat on past tendencies. In historical though, yes they're random.

They are if you use the historical setup wizard--play historical. Not sure about the MLB Quickstart. Guessing with as much work as the folks that make the quickstart put in, the splits are pretty darn accurate.

Please know I'm not criticizing OOTP's method in any way shape or form. I think it I actually prefer the generic. Heck, I use the combo of recalc and player development when I play historical/random debut, so my games take on a more "what if" feel from day one. I can say this without a doubt, I would much rather OOTP use generic splits and offer me every historical season from 1900 forward, than have OOTP painstakingly create each season by hand and sell me those seasons one by one. Oh and then there's the whole "Career Play" aspect of OOTP. Let's face it, "Career Play" is OOTP's drop the mic feature.

Can this be the reason Stratomatic charges so much for their season rosters? Especially considering how hard it would be to go back and recreated these splits vs. L/R. I know they have mentioned it before but, I never had anything to compare it against in terms of another game. Just thinking out loud.

I'm sure it's a huge reason why. The individual seasons are the bell cow of the replay games. It's how they stay in business. I purchased Action Pc Baseball earlier this year. With this game you can replay a historical season(if you own that season) with real transactions, real lineups and the game updates daily, so the players available on each 25 man roster are those that were available on that day in real life. This is amazing. Think of the amount of work required to create this. That being said, the whole time I'm playing, I'm thinking......so once the season is over...it's over.

Yes - they claim each season disk has hundreds of hours of research, yadda yadda yadda.

In my book, it is just not worth it. I am a former SOM player and now I don't bother and play OOTP only.

I don't get the appeal of doing a historical season this way. If I do 1998, I already know the Yankees are good and the Devil Rays aren't. For me, the appeal of doing historical play is is career mode so a good team can become bad over time and visa versa, and you work on trying to build your bad team into a good one. Or, the appeal to me is to have players from different eras mixed so I can have the Micky Mantle/Jake Arrieta match up (for instance).

There's just no appeal to me in trying replicate past results.

You are exactly right about that, you are not allowed to mention there competators.

The Mantle - Arrieta matchup is what I love about Strat because I love making my own seasons ( I have about 80 ) and doing some fun quick projects to have great pitcher- batter matchups from different eras.

I appreciate all the replys and I am for sure going to get the OOTP 17 baseball game, but I will continue to keep getting the new seasons from strat.

Does Action really have daily promotions and demotions?

I play both.....really enjoy C and D from Strat, have the computer game, and I love OOTP. I think the biggest difference in Strat, the game engine is individualized for each player. In OOTP, it seems set up to produce yearly stats, not individualized stats........if that makes sense.

From the game: AS PLAYED--This mode can be used for seasons that include complete transactions. Rosters for each game will include actual active players for that game, taking into account real life injuries, trades, signings, call-ups and demotions. Real life lineups and starting pitchers will be used.

You can also play with all the above transactions, but set your own lineups.

Just want to give MLB Showdown some love too! Pretty much a dumb down version of Strat-o-matic.

I played so many season with that game and I loved keeping track of the stats. I tried breaking the game out again but now being older it's kind of more of a pain than anything to keep track of everything and setting everything up haha.