Wow!

[David Watts]

Created a historical league with real minors beginning in 1962. 1 year recalc. For right now I still have the reserve clause in place.

Just finished the first season. Believe it or not the Los Angeles Angels in only year 2 of their existence won the World Series. The beat the Dodgers in 7 game with Buck Rodgers taking home World Series MVP honors. The races in both leagues went down to the very last day. The Angels outlasted the Red Sox and the Dodgers held off the Giants.

I don't think I've ever seen an expansion team do that well.

[thehef]

Over many years and versions of OOTP, I seem to recall that the 60's & 70's Angels & Astros often outperform reality... Not sure why that is...

[Brad K]

Maybe Bo Belinsky pitched more and partied less.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Maybe Bo Belinsky pitched more and partied less.

Belinsky went 15-6 with a 2.48 era, good enough for Rookie of the Year honors. He also won 2 games in the World Series with a 1.38 era.

[Charlie Hough]

I'm late to the discussion, but historical minors and adjustments for players with lower AB or IP can allow some teams to overachieve with pretty dramatic results. I have seen this multiple times in OOTP 24.

Player ratings can be quite good for those who had excellent stats in the minors but didn't do well in the majors. That can allow those players to be great contributors and help teams overachieve.

A perfect example was Fran Mullins in my 1980 White Sox game. In AAA that year, he was .278/.348/.470 with 18 HR and 74 RBI in 413 AB. He was also a really good fielder. Based on his combined MiLB and MLB stats, OOTP gave him really solid ratings, which allowed him to be the team's starting shortstop all season. He ended up leading the team in HR and having a phenomenal season. Along with a an outstanding young pitching rotation and players such as Chet Lemon, who had big seasons, he helped the White Sox win the pennant.

Also, I believe this has now been addressed in fixes for some of the ratings calculations based on minor league stats, but, in earlier builds of OOTP 24, some players with minors-only stats were given inflated ratings. In these cases, AAA-only and occasionally AA-only players with no MLB stats were calculated as if they'd produced their stats at the MLB level. This allowed them to make rosters and help teams overachieve. But I reported it as a bug, and a newer build supposedly fixed it. I haven't tested it yet, though, but I'll be doing that with a new save soon.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I'm late to the discussion, but historical minors and adjustments for players with lower AB or IP can allow some teams to overachieve with pretty dramatic results. I have seen this multiple times in OOTP 24.

Player ratings can be quite good for those who had excellent stats in the minors but didn't do well in the majors. That can allow those players to be great contributors and help teams overachieve.

A perfect example was Fran Mullins in my 1980 White Sox game. In AAA that year, he was .278/.348/.470 with 18 HR and 74 RBI in 413 AB. He was also a really good fielder. Based on his combined MiLB and MLB stats, OOTP gave him really solid ratings, which allowed him to be the team's starting shortstop all season. He ended up leading the team in HR and having a phenomenal season. Along with a an outstanding young pitching rotation and players such as Chet Lemon, who had big seasons, he helped the White Sox win the pennant.

Also, I believe this has now been addressed in fixes for some of the ratings calculations based on minor league stats, but, in earlier builds of OOTP 24, some players with minors-only stats were given inflated ratings. In these cases, AAA-only and occasionally AA-only players with no MLB stats were calculated as if they'd produced their stats at the MLB level. This allowed them to make rosters and help teams overachieve. But I reported it as a bug, and a newer build supposedly fixed it. I haven't tested it yet, though, but I'll be doing that with a new save soon.

How did Mullins do the next season or two?

[Charlie Hough]

Okay, as it turns out, Fran Mullins' big season was in 1981 and not 1980. But he was still a big contributor in that 1980 pennant-winning season. In 1980, he was a mid-season callup and hit 8 HR, had 42 RBI, and had .402 SLG in 302 AB.

In 1981, he followed that up with a full season as the starter at 3B, where he moved when the White Sox signed Alfredo Griffin as a free agent at SS. Mullins went on to produce 23 HR, 92 RBI, and hit .264 with a whopping .447 slugging percentage in 535 AB. He beat out Claudell Washington for the team lead in HR and RBI, and he was a huge factor in the White Sox repeating as pennant winners.

It also helped that the Sox acquired Chris Chambliss and Larry Herndon, whereas they were trading away players and cutting costs in real life.

In 1982, Mullins went cold twice during the season and was not as productive, finishing with 12 HR, 56 RBI, and only .362 SLG in 486 AB. Oddly enough, this happened even though development is turned on and his power rating improved slightly for 1982.

But his minor league stats were a huge factor in all of this. He was a really good player in AAA and hit for considerable power for several years from 1980 through around 1985. But he never translated that into MLB performance during his brief stints with the White Sox, Giants and Indians. in OOTP, though, we get a chance to see how he might have performed if things had been different.

By the way, during those same 1980 and 1981 OOTP seasons, the San Diego Padres won the NL pennant, and largely for similar reasons. Randy Bass, who had a monster year in AAA in 1980 (37 HR, 123 RBI and .644 SLG), put up similar numbers for the Padres in MLB. He and Gene Tenace had mind-boggling seasons in 1980, each hitting over 30 HR, and John D'Acquisto was a flash-in-the-pan 20-game winner.

D'Acquisto got a good stamina rating based on his career starts, but I still don't know how he was so good in 1980. His real life stats for the initial calculation didn't really warrant it, so he was ultimately a clear overachiever. By the next season, his control started to suffer, and then it bottomed out in 1982, where he ended up barely clinging to life as a reliever, just as happened to him in real life.

FYI, the settings for this game involved 3-year recalc for the initial ratings and future player creation, with fairly heavy emphasis on the current season, and then development would take over. Pitcher stamina was based on a player's career.

[Brad K]

Another factor is players can far exceed their real life maximum performance (or be far below the minimum) due to OOTP being married to randomness and not having ceilings and floors for performance. I've related in the past I had Tony Armas hit .325 and .179 in consecutive seasons.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Okay, as it turns out, Fran Mullins' big season was in 1981 and not 1980. But he was still a big contributor in that 1980 pennant-winning season. In 1980, he was a mid-season callup and hit 8 HR, had 42 RBI, and had .402 SLG in 302 AB.

In 1981, he followed that up with a full season as the starter at 3B, where he moved when the White Sox signed Alfredo Griffin as a free agent at SS. Mullins went on to produce 23 HR, 92 RBI, and hit .264 with a whopping .447 slugging percentage in 535 AB. He beat out Claudell Washington for the team lead in HR and RBI, and he was a huge factor in the White Sox repeating as pennant winners.

It also helped that the Sox acquired Chris Chambliss and Larry Herndon, whereas they were trading away players and cutting costs in real life.

In 1982, Mullins went cold twice during the season and was not as productive, finishing with 12 HR, 56 RBI, and only .362 SLG in 486 AB. Oddly enough, this happened even though development is turned on and his power rating improved slightly for 1982.

But his minor league stats were a huge factor in all of this. He was a really good player in AAA and hit for considerable power for several years from 1980 through around 1985. But he never translated that into MLB performance during his brief stints with the White Sox, Giants and Indians. in OOTP, though, we get a chance to see how he might have performed if things had been different.

By the way, during those same 1980 and 1981 OOTP seasons, the San Diego Padres won the NL pennant, and largely for similar reasons. Randy Bass, who had a monster year in AAA in 1980 (37 HR, 123 RBI and .644 SLG), put up similar numbers for the Padres in MLB. He and Gene Tenace had mind-boggling seasons in 1980, each hitting over 30 HR, and John D'Acquisto was a flash-in-the-pan 20-game winner.

D'Acquisto got a good stamina rating based on his career starts, but I still don't know how he was so good in 1980. His real life stats for the initial calculation didn't really warrant it, so he was ultimately a clear overachiever. By the next season, his control started to suffer, and then it bottomed out in 1982, where he ended up barely clinging to life as a reliever, just as happened to him in real life.

FYI, the settings for this game involved 3-year recalc for the initial ratings and future player creation, with fairly heavy emphasis on the current season, and then development would take over. Pitcher stamina was based on a player's career.

Cool stuff. Would be cool to see how Mike Hessman performs in that type of setup.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Cool stuff. Would be cool to see how Mike Hessman performs in that type of setup.

Hessman might have more limited value, depending on when he's initially created. But I base a player's potential ratings on remaining peak seasons, so he would definitely have a chance to be an impact player. He hit for a really low average in most of his minor league seasons, and he had a couple of years with outrageous strikeout totals. But if he developed a bit differently, or if his initial ratings were created based on one of his top seasons in the minors, where his average and strikeout totals were more respectable, he could end up being an MLB star.

Before historical minors were fully and properly implemented in OOTP, I always played with MLB-only players. But, now that historical minors are handled pretty well and the issues with ratings calculations were largely fixed, it's the only way I play. It provides a lot more opportunities for interesting "what if" cases like Hessman's.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Hessman might have more limited value, depending on when he's initially created. But I base a player's potential ratings on remaining peak seasons, so he would definitely have a chance to be an impact player. He hit for a really low average in most of his minor league seasons, and he had a couple of years with outrageous strikeout totals. But if he developed a bit differently, or if his initial ratings were created based on one of his top seasons in the minors, where his average and strikeout totals were more respectable, he could end up being an MLB star.

Before historical minors were fully and properly implemented in OOTP, I always played with MLB-only players. But, now that historical minors are handled pretty well and the issues with ratings calculations were largely fixed, it's the only way I play. It provides a lot more opportunities for interesting "what if" cases like Hessman's.

I'm playing the 1954 season right now using historical minors. I decided to take a break from recalc for this adventure and I'm going strictly with the development engine. I'm a couple weeks into July and have great races in both leagues. Cleveland and New York are going back and forth for the AL lead. Brooklyn has been a top the NL from the start at times by as many as 9 games, but a hot streak by the New York Giants has them just 2 games back.

This morning I watched a game and checked the news. The Pirates traded a 19 year old Roberto Clemente to the Dodgers. This should be really interesting.

[Charlie Hough]

Yes, after 20 years of playing with recalc, I became a convert and started using the development engine with historical minors. Otherwise, you don't really get to see how those "what if" players might develop differently. If you use recalc, then you can still seem some interesting cases, but they're just temporary.

However, I am debating whether I want to keep development turned on during the season. I've been using it that way, but it leads to a lot of small and annoying adjustments from month to month.

I suppose that it helps simulate the ups and downs that players can have during a given season. But it's really annoying when a player is having a great month and suddenly loses a bit of contact, stuff or control, for no apparent reason. Then he'll regain it in another month. Of course, it's nice when a player improves for a while and benefits a team that you're managing. But, overall, it seems a bit pointless at times, or it's not tied enough to a player's performance for my preferences.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I'm playing the 1954 season right now using historical minors. I decided to take a break from recalc for this adventure and I'm going strictly with the development engine. I'm a couple weeks into July and have great races in both leagues. Cleveland and New York are going back and forth for the AL lead. Brooklyn has been a top the NL from the start at times by as many as 9 games, but a hot streak by the New York Giants has them just 2 games back.

This morning I watched a game and checked the news. The Pirates traded a 19 year old Roberto Clemente to the Dodgers. This should be really interesting.

Oh man, I read the story too fast this morning. The Dodgers traded Clemente to the Pirates. Wow, how cool is that.

[Brad K]

No first year player draft in the game so that's the way to get him to Pittsburgh. I wonder which team initiated the trade.

America's Team is my first time playing with historical minors. It's fun. It requires some adjustments since a player is assigned to the organization he first signed with not the MLB team he broke into the majors with.

[David Watts]

Just made it to the start of September in my 1954 season. I have to say, so far I'm really enjoying this development only historical minors setup. Hopefully my computer doesn't explode from the 7000 leagues in operation during this period. I'm excited to see how the game transitions from one season to the next in terms of player performance. I usually use a combo of recalc and the development engines in my games. It's been a long time since I turned recalc off completely.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Just made it to the start of September in my 1954 season. I have to say, so far I'm really enjoying this development only historical minors setup. Hopefully my computer doesn't explode from the 7000 leagues in operation during this period. I'm excited to see how the game transitions from one season to the next in terms of player performance. I usually use a combo of recalc and the development engines in my games. It's been a long time since I turned recalc off completely.

Suggest you continue with that. If you want to turn it off in my view might as well play with fictional players.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Suggest you continue with that. If you want to turn it off in my view might as well play with fictional players.

Playing with historical minors is pretty much fictional play to begin with.

[David Watts]

Guys learning new positions is playing fictional. The minute Koufax plays past 1966 your playing fictional.

[Pelican]

Funny, but I don't understand why anybody would have the annual recalc on, as it effectively negatives what has happened during the past year, pulling the players back to reality. But we know what actually happened, historically. Why simply try as hard as possible to replicate that? Where's the fun or the challenge in that? (I know, there can be challenges within the constraints of actual numbers and actual trades and actual retirements. It just seems unduly repetitive to me.)

Fictional? Once you take control of a team as GM or Manager, it becomes fictional. Once you make a single trade, it's fiction. It's not binary. The question is how far you want to go into an alternative universe. And if you want that undone and pulled back to reality, every year. Fictional players are too much of an effort for me. Maybe when/if I'm fully retired. Development on a high TCR provides as much change as I can handle. Since I'm exploring the "what if" of my trades and signings and spending and managing games, why not explore how things might have diverged differently? Playing historical, that prevents me from "knowing" that this Koufax guy will finally master his control of pitches. Or this Maris fellow will suddenly develop plus plus plus power numbers.

But the beauty of the game is that we can disagree over this and play it in totally different ways and then discuss it. I like that.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Funny, but I don't understand why anybody would have the annual recalc on, as it effectively negatives what has happened during the past year, pulling the players back to reality..

My understanding is TCR affects changes during the season but Dev does not.

As far as players back to reality, randomness means on an annual basis players often don't perform to reality. I've often noted I had Tony Armas hit .325 and.179 in consecutive years, neither of which is reality.