Historic Losing streak with a good team

[Samueltbaum]

I greatly enjoy the game, but want to see if others have experienced this before. I haven't in OOTP or any other baseball MGMT game I've ever played. I am not looking to make a change to the game, I'm simply curious to know if others have experienced something similar.

What I did and my dilemma. Started off Oakland (junk team in first season). Built the team up with great offense, 2 great pitchers, 2 good pitchers, monster bullpen, solid defense at each position... Season 2 starts great, then complete collapse to 103 loss.

Season 1: 70 wins, great young players. Loaded coaching staff, all outstanding/legendary in what they need to be good at.

Season 2: Improved the team with new players and improved players to make push for playoffs in year 2. Hovered between 3-6 games below .500 first until June.... On June 15th I started a winning streak to go 15-1, all against teams that were and finished above .500.... After that great streak that had me happy as a clam, my team followed this by going 16-63. I think in July my team only won 4 games.

Again, I'm not interested in making any changes to the game at all. I enjoy the challenge of trying to step up my game. I'm simply curious if other players have created a great team like this, to only have it fall apart so badly, with no injuries.

[Brad K]

I've had four or five win months with good teams.

What is the record for the full season? And what was the pre-season predicted record?

[eauhomme]

Remember the 2019 Mariners, 13-2 start, 55-92 finish. 68-94 season.

One of the things I love about baseball is that there are no guarantees, no easy games. All teams should win 54. All teams should lose 54. The difference between a good team and the bad team is the middle 54.

In my current sim, I had a 110 win team get swept in the first round of the playoffs. In a previous one, I had a team drop from over 100 wins to under .500 with essentially the same team, then rebound to 100 again the next year. Absolutely maddening. It happens.

I also had in this current sim a game that had 5 meltdowns in the bullpen. An easy win turned into a heartbreaking loss as I shuttled through pitcher after pitcher allowing something like 10 runs in the last three innings. Seems impossible, but the 116-win 2001 Mariners did the same thing against Cleveland (12 run blown lead after the 7th) on August 5, 2001.

[Samueltbaum]

Originally Posted by eauhomme

Remember the 2019 Mariners, 13-2 start, 55-92 finish. 68-94 season.

One of the things I love about baseball is that there are no guarantees, no easy games. All teams should win 54. All teams should lose 54. The difference between a good team and the bad team is the middle 54.

In my current sim, I had a 110 win team get swept in the first round of the playoffs. In a previous one, I had a team drop from over 100 wins to under .500 with essentially the same team, then rebound to 100 again the next year. Absolutely maddening. It happens.

I also had in this current sim a game that had 5 meltdowns in the bullpen. An easy win turned into a heartbreaking loss as I shuttled through pitcher after pitcher allowing something like 10 runs in the last three innings. Seems impossible, but the 116-win 2001 Mariners did the same thing against Cleveland (12 run blown lead after the 7th) on August 5, 2001.

I understand all that. I'm simply confused how in the world of baseball can an All-star player with a 60+ rating, and 70+ contact, .300 hitter before he joins my team hits .160 in a season, while a non all star player.

It wouldn't have phased me very much, but I spent a great deal of time greatly improving the team, loading the farm system many 70+ potential players, then because of that second season, I didn't pass my goals (on a team I greatly improved, because I sucked, and now the owner wont let me sign any contracts trying to sign long term deals with with top 100 prospects I have.

From what I read this means that the owner is getting ready to fire me. Many hours spent, only to not be able to continue making a monster middle of season 3.

I'm going to try again, but regardless of what great moves I do, it means nothing if the great hitters I sign hit .230 or less a season.

[Samueltbaum]

I'm simply confused how random it is. I built up a worse team when I had hard trades on that won the world series in year three.

New Game Easy trades, much more loaded team, and my team is a complete joke. Had I had an extra year, it would've been more beastly since young talent were getting to higher levels.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Samueltbaum

I'm simply confused how random it is. I built up a worse team when I had hard trades on that won the world series in year three.

New Game Easy trades, much more loaded team, and my team is a complete joke. Had I had an extra year, it would've been more beastly since young talent were getting to higher levels.

Based on what has been posted by the devs it's all random except for a player in a slump gets a little push to stay in a slump, but not enough that you'd notice. I still ponder the meaning of the last phrase. Same thing applies to a hot streak.

Now if it's truly random, and I believe that except as stated it is, then there is a difference between the range in OOTP random and real life baseball random. Because we don't see hitters bouncing between .300 and .160 in real life.

There's a thread about what to do with hitters in a slump. People have explained the various things they do. But if they believe the game is truly random they wouldn't do anything. They'd just continue playing the guy.

[Brad K]

PS. Check the box "can't be fired." Owners are modeled correctly in the game. They're compulsive, illogical, ignorant about baseball, and have the attitude "Don't confuse me with the facts, just give me what I want!" I'm surprised the MLB license allows such an accurate depiction! LOL.

[Samueltbaum]

Originally Posted by Brad K

PS. Check the box "can't be fired." Owners are modeled correctly in the game. They're compulsive, illogical, ignorant about baseball, and have the attitude "Don't confuse me with the facts, just give me what I want!" I'm surprised the MLB license allows such an accurate depiction! LOL.

Challenge mode must have a huge difference in difficulty/players living up to their ratings. I started a game non challenge mode. With a far less strong team I made it to the world series in first year, and my hitters were not hitting under .200.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Samueltbaum

Challenge mode must have a huge difference in difficulty/players living up to their ratings. I started a game non challenge mode. With a far less strong team I made it to the world series in first year, and my hitters were not hitting under .200.

Don't conclude that based on one experience.

Winning a pennant or a division title in a decent sized division is somewhat meaningful. Making it to the World Series through several playoff rounds, well, I may never see baseball's two best teams in the World Series in my lifetime.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Samueltbaum

I understand all that. I'm simply confused how in the world of baseball can an All-star player with a 60+ rating, and 70+ contact, .300 hitter before he joins my team hits .160 in a season, while a non all star player.



It wouldn't have phased me very much, but I spent a great deal of time greatly improving the team, loading the farm system many 70+ potential players, then because of that second season, I didn't pass my goals (on a team I greatly improved, because I sucked, and now the owner wont let me sign any contracts trying to sign long term deals with with top 100 prospects I have.



From what I read this means that the owner is getting ready to fire me. Many hours spent, only to not be able to continue making a monster middle of season 3.



I'm going to try again, but regardless of what great moves I do, it means nothing if the great hitters I sign hit .230 or less a season.

1986 NL MVP Willie McGee, St. Louis Cardinals. An NL-leading 216 hits, 18 triples and .353 batting average, complemented by a .384 on base percentage and a .503 slugging, 56 stolen bases, 114 runs, 10 home runs and 82 RBIs. The follow-up: 127 hits, a .256/.306/.370, with 7 HR, 48 RBIs, 65 runs and 19 steals.


Has happened lots of times. That's baseball for ya

[Samueltbaum]

My point being is that a loaded team realistically wouldn't lose terribly to a team that doesn't have a single all star on it. This happens a-lot in the 24 version. I don't remember this a thing in the previous 3 versions I had bought. Still enjoy the game, but it's not the version to create absolute monster teams that repeatedly win over 116 wins.

[Samueltbaum]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Don't conclude that based on one experience.

Winning a pennant or a division title in a decent sized division is somewhat meaningful. Making it to the World Series through several playoff rounds, well, I may never see baseball's two best teams in the World Series in my lifetime.

Going back through my previous posts to see if things I didn't catch.
Years I would argue the two best teams went to the world series.

2020 Dodgers Beat Rays
2018 Red Sox Beat Dodgers
2017 Astros Beat Dodgers (trash can incident aside Astros were loaded with juggernaut talent is a shame they ruined their image forever because someone wanted to hit a trash can. Until Altuve is gone, I route against them)
2013 Red Sox Beat Cardinals.

Now I could've added 2016 as well, Cleveland had most wins in the AL, but Boston's offense was a beast and much larger Run differential than Cleveland had. Cubs were the best in the NL.

Simply in the last 10 World Series arguable 50% of them had the best teams of each league competing against one another. The 99 Yankees/Braves were monsters. Many Hall of Famers on both sides, would've thought it be closer series, but definitely best teams in the league. The 96 game between the two could have a case as well, but Cleveland was a monster as well in the AL.

Last year was upsetting, Texas was a great team and I justify why the made the world series. Arizona in the WS was upsetting since the weren't even in the top 4 of best in the NL and was barely above .500. They got hot at the right time, so props to them, but its a shame Dodgers/Braves (far better teams overall) didn't get the opportunity to meet Texas in the WS, would've been a great series, rather than what we got. This is likely a good reason why it was the least watched watched WS on record.

[Brad K]

Going forward. They keep adding playoff teams.

[Samueltbaum]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Going forward. They keep adding playoff teams.

I do not enjoy the new playoff structure and hope more teams are not added. I think it waters down the playoffs because an 9/10 seed can get lucky and upset a 1/2 seed (actual team that could be the best in the league). That is the nature of entertainment though. They make the decisions, and we pay a lot of $$$ to watch them every year.

That being said, all the players/owners need to say is look at NFL (14 teams/almost half the league), NBA (20 more than half of the league), NHL (16/half of the league). I think MLB is up to 12 now which is maybe 40% of the league (math might be off a little).

I miss the 4 team structure, that way its almost certain a great team would make the World Series. I'd enjoy if they went back to most wins in league make the world series. That would mean the regular season actual means something. But even now the amount of teams that make the MLB playoffs is smaller than any other major professional sport. Not the new structure where the Diamondbacks got lucky and made it.