[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by RchW

Apples and oranges. Historical players get upset when a name they know does much worse than they did IRL. Or a name they don't know does well. There are other reasons obviously but for the most part historical hackles get raised when individual (team too?) results don't meet the expectations of that year or set of years.

You already stipulated in another post that the era specific league totals are generally close to the mark**. The issue then becomes one of a dynamic sim (OOTP) vs a static replay of historical results. I thought recalc was supposed to push historicals towards the static model but I'm not a pure historical simmer so I don't use recalc.

Markus' use of "Improved Historical Simulation" is completely valid as OOTPD has never claimed to be a static replay sim. Even if you dispute that, the use of "puffery" in marketing and sales claims is legitimate.

If Markus has in fact made programming and structural changes that "show" better results by his and/or beta testing the claim becomes more legit and less "puffery".

Markus gets league totals close. It's not possible to claim any accuracy for individual fictional stats where league structure, set up and strategy is determined by the gamer. Most gripes about outrageous stats can be traced to out of whack league settings. My ongoing gripe is that the default settings in the game do not come close to modern MLB totals. Over the last 3.5 versions I've spent considerable time adjusting league total modifiers, including all minor leagues, player creation, player development and aging, league strategy and so on. To give only one example, double plays often need to be increased by 40% or more via LTM to produce correct results for a modern MLB league.

Doing this I came to realize that the real strength of this game is its volatility. As an example, I wanted modern MLB stats but starting pitcher CG from the 70's. The result is a complete change in MR use compared to the modern game. That's strictly my problem, not OOTP's. If the game were to be "tightened up" to reduce this volatility it may lose some flexibility. I decided to live with it, even though I'd like things to be easier to change.





To me there is a structural difference in player creation between fictional leagues and historical leagues that may explain this. I imagine that fictional players are created in one large pool that is "fitted" (bell curve) to the league set up. This may allow for a better (smoother) distribution of ratings at league creation.

Historical players are constructed one at a time (I think) from the database or from a roster set. I wonder if the game gets out of whack when it calculates ratings that don't match its internal league structure "fit". Is it possible that some players get modified to satisfy this structure. This is pure speculation on my part.

Well, the AI decisions on who is on active roster and who is on reserve is a bit ridiculous. I pointed out 2 examples earlier. This will also skew things. Even when allowing the maximum # of players on the roster, and manually putting a pitcher in the rotation, the Cy Young winner from that year was allowed to start 9 games? Does anyone really think this is realistic? I still can't figure out how the AI valued Jim Hardin more than Cuellar.

Most of what you said I can't argue with, and your reference to what I said about overall league stats is true. Markus has always claimed he was looking to make the overall stats look correct. Considering his time restrictions, he can't possibly sim season after season and analyze individual stats, so his shortcut was to make the overall stats look right. So, since I have more time on my hands than I care to admit, I am just pointing out things I have seen that he hasn't. What he does with that info is his business.

It is just how randomly the game divides those overall stats among players, particularly pitchers. I can get those same overall stats in other games but those games also make individual/team stats a lot more believable than OOTP.

I believe that if the only accuracy you can get is the league totals while team/individuals stats are whacked, you can not call it historical. You're just using real names to create fictional stats. Just because the names are real doesn't make it historical either.

I don't know, maybe people's ideas of "historical" is different, hence the different points of view. I can't really say Joe Blow's opinion on historical play is wrong and mine is right. It's all a matter of individual preferences. All I am saying is that for me it doesn't work. I have admitted in the past that as far as suspension of disbelief, I don't have that ability.