Historical SB totals seem low

[sprague]

Now into the early 70s, and most of the stolen base numbers seem down for the league. 1972, the screenshot for example, would have Brock lead with 63 while Joe morgan and Cesar Cedeno were over 55.
Noticing these values for most years so far

[Garlon]

This can be due to strategy settings, whether have retire according to history enabled, or your position player fatigue settings.

I have seen good results.

[Brad K]

Do good results you have seen on 25 require using the extreme settings you recommended for 24 and older?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by sprague

Now into the early 70s, and most of the stolen base numbers seem down for the league. 1972, the screenshot for example, would have Brock lead with 63 while Joe morgan and Cesar Cedeno were over 55.
Noticing these values for most years so far

Re Garlon's response, what are your settings? And if you were running the above as a test, do you have any updates on additional testing? I would think that if you were running your game with out-of-the-box settings, then this might be worthy of a bug report...

Originally Posted by Garlon

This can be due to strategy settings, whether have retire according to history enabled, or your position player fatigue settings.

I have seen good results.

Would you expect to see historically accurate or too-low numbers if using defaults for the settings you mentioned?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by thehef

Would you expect to see historically accurate or too-low numbers if using defaults for the settings you mentioned?

Defaults will not produce accurate SB output unless there's a huge change that wasn't mentioned in the release notes.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Defaults will not produce accurate SB output unless there's a huge change that wasn't mentioned in the release notes.

Yes, there was a huge change. Everything to do with historical output was adjusted and rebalanced this year.

[thehef]

Hey Lukas, so I'm following this and not sure what to make of this sequence

Originally Posted by Garlon

This can be due to strategy settings, whether have retire according to history enabled, or your position player fatigue settings... I have seen good results.

Originally Posted by thehef

Would you expect to see historically accurate or too-low numbers if using defaults for the settings you mentioned?

Originally Posted by Brad K

Defaults will not produce accurate SB output unless there's a huge change that wasn't mentioned in the release notes.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Yes, there was a huge change. Everything to do with historical output was adjusted and rebalanced this year.

Should I conclude from the above that with default settings, SB output will be too low (compared to historical)? If so, then I would hope that this is still a work-in-progress to get it right; otherwise, if so but it is what it is then I think the next step would be to clarify what non-default settings historical gamers should use in order to get the "good results" to which Garlon alludes but does not specify... OTOH, if default settings should be resulting in historically solid SB, etc., numbers, then I guess we need more info from sprague on his settings...

Thanks in advance

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by thehef

Hey Lukas, so I'm following this and not sure what to make of this sequence

The defaults generally seem fine in all the testing we've done. You have access to the beta forums and can follow the dozens of threads there.

But this is an area where any changes and and any different settings or import choices can definitely have an impact. So whatever Sprague chose, it would definitely be good to know that.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The defaults generally seem fine in all the testing we've done. You have access to the beta forums and can follow the dozens of threads there.

Yes, trying to follow it all. So much out there in both beta and gen pop

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

But this is an area where any changes and and any different settings or import choices can definitely have an impact. So whatever Sprague chose, it would definitely be good to know that.

Yup. Hope he'll respond soon. I think - but am not sure - that his test is the same one he's reporting on here: https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=353298. And in that one he did some things with pre-modern-era league totals:

Originally Posted by sprague

I have increased the league totals to be combined with a modern era then halved.
For example 1901-1909 had a HR per game average of .12
The modern period since 2000 is around 1.10
Added together and divided gives 0.61 or in a 165300 AB modifier, 2940 HR
I have done this for all stats so they are "slightly modernized" but still half way to their real life-

I like to play this way, and given how the game rates players of all eras (in a more neutralized fashion) I will try this out.

However, I'm not sure if/how this would affect the low SB totals he reported here for the 1970's... especially since it's unclear so far if he modified the '70's numbers as he described...

Thanks!