My Biggest wish for Historical

[David Watts]

Please add the choice for recalc to the first page of the historical league creation wizard. Let us choose 1 year, 3 year or 5 year when creating our league.

Then please, can the developers make it so the game looks at our choice of recalc, be it 1,3 or 5 years and then offer us the best possible options for our adjust hitter/pitchers make bad hitters/pitchers. Why this aspect of the game is often reduced to throwing darts blindly into space is beyond me. I have no idea what the best option is for 1 year recalc. I know it isn't the default 300/150 for hitters.

Just give us the answer for each recalc that provides the best results. It could be as simple as a question....Would you like OOTP to use your assigned settings to set the game for most realistic results?

And one more thing. If we're using 3 or 5 year recalc, we're playing historical, but we're clearly not doing a replay. We are doing a whatif. The game needs to have the ability to see this and no longer destroy players that missed seasons due to the war, injury etc. Williams, DiMaggio, Greenberg and Feller should not become bench players during the war years. Chris Carpenter should not pitch at the top of the rotation and compete for a Cy Young award and then fall to the last pitcher in the bullpen or the reserve roster during the 2 years he was hurt in real life. Let the game in some way factor in their actual career. And turning development off is not the answer. Doing that means I can't do whatifs where Koufax doesn't retire.

[thehef]

Excellent post!

I'll add that several versions ago, for players missing seasons or playing beyond their real-life retirement, OOTP seemed to apply some sort of minimal/random development to them, even with TCR off*** ... At some point, full functionality of Retire According to History and Miss Seasons According to History was removed, especially if you are also playing with historical transactions enabled.

***I can't say for sure how OOTP handled this, but many versions ago if I de-selected RAH & MSAH, used historical transactions, and with development off, then Koufax would play beyond 1966 with reasonable - but varied from sim to sim - results, and Teddy Ballgame and Joltin' Joe would have reasonable war years stats.

For the latter (restoring full functionality of RAH & MSAH), that has been requested for a few years now. I keep pushing for it... Restoring it would be in line with what you wrote above: "We are doing a whatif. The game needs to have the ability to see this..."

One thing you didn't mention but I'm sure you'll endorse, is being able to adjust your adjust & weaken settings after you've started your game... just like you can adjust TCR or recalc later... As it is now, you can't see what your adjust & weaken selections were, so if you don't remember what they were for one game (or test) vs another, you're out of luck... That said, there might be some sentiment to change this. Not sure, though...

Anyways, great stuff!

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by thehef

Excellent post!

I'll add that several versions ago, for players missing seasons or playing beyond their real-life retirement, OOTP seemed to apply some sort of minimal/random development to them, even with TCR off*** ... At some point, full functionality of Retire According to History and Miss Seasons According to History was removed, especially if you are also playing with historical transactions enabled.

***I can't say for sure how OOTP handled this, but many versions ago if I de-selected RAH & MSAH, used historical transactions, and with development off, then Koufax would play beyond 1966 with reasonable - but varied from sim to sim - results, and Teddy Ballgame and Joltin' Joe would have reasonable war years stats.

For the latter (restoring full functionality of RAH & MSAH), that has been requested for a few years now. I keep pushing for it... Restoring it would be in line with what you wrote above: "We are doing a whatif. The game needs to have the ability to see this..."

One thing you didn't mention but I'm sure you'll endorse, is being able to adjust your adjust & weaken settings after you've started your game... just like you can adjust TCR or recalc later... As it is now, you can't see what your adjust & weaken selections were, so if you don't remember what they were for one game (or test) vs another, you're out of luck... That said, there might be some sentiment to change this. Not sure, though...

Anyways, great stuff!

The thing is, you can search "Garlon" and find 2 or 3 occasions where he gives his recommendations for 5 year recalc. I have one set of them memorized now for hitters he said to use 154/67 and for pitchers 17/14. I use those a lot. But, what about 3 year recalc. I have no clue. Would have to search, but I think Pstrickert gives some settings that work for real lineups/real transaction replays.

It would just be so cool if the game simply displayed the best option. User's could still use their own if they choose to do so. I agree 100% that it shouldn't be a one time option. If we know we made a mistake, starting over sometimes isn't the fun thing to do.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by David Watts

The thing is, you can search "Garlon" and find 2 or 3 occasions where he gives his recommendations for 5 year recalc. I have one set of them memorized now for hitters he said to use 154/67 and for pitchers 17/14. I use those a lot. But, what about 3 year recalc. I have no clue. Would have to search, but I think Pstrickert gives some settings that work for real lineups/real transaction replays.

It would just be so cool if the game simply displayed the best option. User's could still use their own if they choose to do so. I agree 100% that it shouldn't be a one time option. If we know we made a mistake, starting over sometimes isn't the fun thing to do.

Yep, you nailed it... There was some discussion about exactly what you describe for the adjust/weaken settings. Pretty sure the manual itself say that defaults of 300, etc... are not recommended for historical replays. So why not have that default change to some other number if we're doing a historical replay? I think - but do not know for sure - that the developers would be open to this suggestion, but when it was discussed before I don't think we ever came to a conclusion about whose recommended settings should be used...

Personally, I'd be fine with Garlon and pstrickert getting together and coming up with recommended settings based upon 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and whatever else... and going with that... Can't see how that would not be an improvement.

[Rain King]

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the last.

The Creation Wizard could be MUCH better for historical so that there is both more guidance and just less of a need to adjust so many of the default settings.

However, OOTP is not a replay game. It is a simulation game. Roger Maris should not have the same odds of hitting 71 home runs in 1961 as he does of hitting 51. That is not how I want 1961 to work and it isn't how probability and baseball stats works.

They can add a separate "replay" mode or something if they want for that purpose, but I do not want it to change how a current 1-year recalc simulation works regarding outlier seasons.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the last.

The Creation Wizard could be MUCH better for historical so that there is both more guidance and just less of a need to adjust so many of the default settings.

However, OOTP is not a replay game. It is a simulation game. Roger Maris should not have the same odds of hitting 71 home runs in 1961 as he does of hitting 51. That is not how I want 1961 to work and it isn't how probability and baseball stats works.

They can add a separate "replay" mode or something if they want for that purpose, but I do not want it to change how a current 1-year recalc simulation works regarding outlier seasons.

May I ask what you want out of 1 year recalc?

[David Watts]

my mistake

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I've often wondered what the folks that worked on real transactions/real lineups feel when folks say that OOTP isn't a replay game? All one has to do is create a real lineups/real transaction league make some adjustment to the adjust and make bad setting and OOTP will produce some flat out amazing results. If OOTP ever took the time to create actual rosters to go with real lineups and real transactions, so that bullpens and benches are true to real life, OOTP could compete with the majority of the replay games out there.

The engine isn't a replay engine. It isn't trying to get numbers as close as possible to the real life counterparts. It is trying to recreate players with a realistic distribution of possible outcomes. That is what I mean by it isn't a "replay game".

If you rate players who performed at the extreme ends of the spectrum exactly on those results you are going to see MORE extreme results of some kind in most of your simulations.

I want to simulate 1961 like you are really rewinding time and re-experiencing it as an alternate reality. It is MUCH more likely that Maris hits 56 home runs in that scenario than 66.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The engine isn't a replay engine.

Yet on the game setup it gives a choice of whether to optimize ratings for career play or, exact quote, "Single-Season Replay". Additionally it provides options to use historical transactions and historical lineups. So does it have replay capabilities or are these words and features just smoke?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

If you rate players who performed at the extreme ends of the spectrum exactly on those results you are going to see MORE extreme results of some kind in most of your simulations.

Yet in trying to eliminate extremes, OOTP cares only about high HR totals. Quite inconsistent.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Yet in trying to eliminate extremes, OOTP cares only about high HR totals. Quite inconsistent.

How so?

[Brad K]

Here's what the Purity Ring Of Randomness does without floors or ceilings. Three year recalc. From my current save.

1982 HRs is reasonable but 1983? No way for a guy who hit 107 for the rating period.

BA for both 82 and 83 and unrealistic. Player real life stats here.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...rmasto01.shtml

[thehef]

Not really a big deal, but I think some of us - who are participating in both - may have gotten our threads confused. This thread - https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=343774 - is where the discussion evolved about Maris, HR adjustment, etc... Whereas the thread I am posting in now was not about that at all. It was about when the game allows us to select recalc & adjust/weaken settings, and how the game handles retire according to history and miss seasons according to history...

Not scolding anyone but just trying to keep things straight and didn't want this thread - that included some really good things to start with - to get overshadowed by the good stuff that started in the other thread...

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

How so?

Because that's all they're adjusting. I guess you missed the previous discussion on this where we dragged it out of them they were down rating players bit big single season HR totals. Hef commented on the prior discussion, maybe even linked it, I don't remember. It would be good reading for you.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by thehef

Not scolding anyone but just trying to keep things straight and didn't want this thread - that included some really good things to start with - to get overshadowed by the good stuff that started in the other thread...

It's Rain King showing how hijacking is different from consensual topic drift.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

It's Rain King showing how hijacking is different from consensual topic drift.

There was definitely a petty message sent by bringing Maris into this conversation. I admit the other thread was hi-jacked, but when one gets the opportunity to discuss something with Garlon it's hard to pass up. I'm so happy that thread went that direction, as Garlon's explanation now helps my pea brain understand things a little better.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The engine isn't a replay engine. It isn't trying to get numbers as close as possible to the real life counterparts. It is trying to recreate players with a realistic distribution of possible outcomes. That is what I mean by it isn't a "replay game".

If you rate players who performed at the extreme ends of the spectrum exactly on those results you are going to see MORE extreme results of some kind in most of your simulations.

I want to simulate 1961 like you are really rewinding time and re-experiencing it as an alternate reality. It is MUCH more likely that Maris hits 56 home runs in that scenario than 66.

I have zero problem with OOTP not being a replay game, but if that's the case the makers of the historical game need to fully embrace it and make it the best whatif game ever to grace the planet.

If it's not a replay game, the game should be created with the idea that a lot of the users will want to use a combo of recalc and development. It's not a replay game, so "miss seasons according to history" and "retire according to history" should be available, but the game should not require their use in order to produce great results. Retire according to history isn't even an option when playing random debut.

It's not a replay game, so the game really needs to develop a way to smack down guys that had brief runs of success, but little overall career success. It doesn't need to destroy superstars that head to war. It doesn't have to destroy a guy like Chris Carpenter during his real life injury years. If it's not a replay game, the only thing that should destroy Carpenter is if he had a bad OOTP injury. The development engine should take over for a guy like Britt Burns that has his real life career ended by a injury. I shouldn't have to use 5 year recalc and the fingers crossed method when it comes to Williams, DiMaggio, Greenberg and Feller.

I didn't like the Bill Murray movie Groundhogs Day, so I don't want to turn development off and watch Koafax go all Khris Davis until he's 44.

I hope at some point the game can run recalc, but also factor in the length of a players career and use some form of career season average for years when a real life player missed a season or fell below the weaken make bad thresholds. The game should be able to see that Quinton Berry only had 345 plate appearances, while Ted Williams had 9792. Quite a few years ago, the Neutered DB actually filled in the years guys like Williams missed with generic stats tha would help the player beat the weaken make bad settings. I loved that, but I think it should have been taken a step further. Instead of blah generic stats, take a look at how William's career was rolling and have the game project what he might have been for those years.

[Brad K]

I reviewed the other thread. Topic drift started in response to Matt's second post where he raised some issues not directly related to the original question. Multiple people participated with followups that expanded the topic. So I'm going to stick with my previous comment that what happened there was topic drift not a hijacking. WHat happened in this thread is a hijacking.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I hope at some point the game can run recalc, but also factor in the length of a players career and use some form of career season average for years when a real life player missed a season or fell below the weaken make bad thresholds.

This is a good point. The discussion has been about players who missed years due to WWII or Korea but in the late 60s and early 70s there were many instances of players losing playing time due to having to go to National Guard training.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rain King

If you rate players who performed at the extreme ends of the spectrum exactly on those results you are going to see MORE extreme results of some kind in most of your simulations.

But they are rated on their extreme performances except when they hit a lot of home runs. I sure hope the response to this hypocrisy isn't to under rate batting average, SB, etc. There's another solution and there's no reason not to use it since the vow to allow randomness in all cases is already broken.