Feedback Requested: Tweaked Settings for Aging Curves - Page 3

jarmenia · 07-25-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akw4572

So are you saying to set the batter aging at 1.002, development at 1.200, pitcher aging at 1.001, and pitcher development at 1.450? I've a bit confused.

uhh, he's saying:

Batter Aging = 0.002
Batter Development = 0.200

Pitcher Aging = 0.001
Pitcher Development = 1.450

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

akw4572 · 07-25-2006, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarmenia

uhh, he's saying:

Batter Aging = 0.002
Batter Development = 0.200

Pitcher Aging = 0.001
Pitcher Development = 1.450

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh ok. That just doesn't seem possible with the default's set at 1.00. So we are tweaking it by .998???? That's what is confusing the hell out of me. Are the defaults that far off? Or by setting them at .002 does it only change it by .002?

jarmenia · 07-25-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akw4572

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh ok. That just doesn't seem possible with the default's set at 1.00. So we are tweaking it by .998???? That's what is confusing the hell out of me. Are the defaults that far off? Or by setting them at .002 does it only change it by .002?

Yes the defaults are that far off.

sovereignstar · 07-25-2006, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akw4572

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh ok. That just doesn't seem possible with the default's set at 1.00. So we are tweaking it by .998???? That's what is confusing the hell out of me. Are the defaults that far off? Or by setting them at .002 does it only change it by .002?

Wait until the original poster releases numbers for the final 1.02 patch. The modifiers shouldn't be that far off anymore.

akw4572 · 07-25-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Yes the defaults are that far off.

Wow, that's amazing.

Seviien · 07-25-2006, 11:58 PM

I don't think the defaults are as far off as the raw values would indicate. My strong suspicion is that Markus designed the multipliers to allow for customization within a band or subest of the overall development arc. For example, taking aging speed from the 1.000 default to the 0.001 extreme is the maximum down adjustment possible, but if the modifiers only account for say 30% of the aging curve and the 70% is hard coded, then the defaults are only "off" 30%.

Granted... I have no idea if that's exactly how it works, but for a variety of reasons I'm pretty sure it's something along these lines.

BTW... the 12262 adjustments are finished, and I've revised the post at the top of the thread (and the thread name) accordingly. From now on, I'll keep the most up to date settings in the top post.

Thanks to all those who provided input. I really appreciate it.

I hope everyone enjoys the settings; I'm still open to suggestions if anyone has them, and I'll do my best to keep the settings updated as future patches are released. However, once my MBA classes start in late August, I'm going to have a lot less flexibility with my time.

sovereignstar · 07-26-2006, 12:05 AM

Hmmm.. you'd think that as Markus made adjustments that your modifications would become less extreme (to an extent). You sure he was listening to you?

endgame · 07-26-2006, 12:08 AM

Thanks for all the time you've devoted to this effort, Seviien. Many, I'm sure, will reap the benefits of your labor. Not to mention, you can get about enjoying the game yourself soon!

Quick question, if you will. It's a brief note in your original post (presumably edited as well for this build?), but did you effectively say PCMs and League Totals were "locked" to track historically using these modifiers?

tk19 · 07-26-2006, 12:14 AM

Here are the results of the test I did. Both are from a 42 game season. The first has all speeds at 1. The second has development speed at 4 (because 42 games are about a fourth of 162). Players were fictional, but for this test I created 20 raw new players and put them all in single-A (the existing players in single-A I either moved to AA or AAA or released, or for two of them, I kept).

Quick explanation of the tables: the third column is their role for the batters, whether a full time starter, part time starter, or backup. Then comes their player ID, then age, their potential on a 20-80 scale, and their current when initially created. The last columns are the player's progression towards their potential: it equals (current at date - original current) / (potential - original current). This is presented at four dates: opening day, midpoint of the season, end of the season, and the next January 1.

As you can see, having the aging set at 1 seems too slow for development - it'll take the players 10 years to reach potential. But at aging of 4, it seems like players will take 2-3 years to reach potential.

One thing I wonder is if I'm getting too much development in the offseason (which is much longer with a 42 game schedule). Maybe the ideal is to set the development to around 2 or 3 during the season, and back down to 1 in the offseason.

If anyone has any thoughts, let me know!
Name: devtest1.bmp
Views: 346
Size: 41.2 KB

Name: devtest1.bmp
Views: 346
Size: 41.2 KB

Name: devtest2.bmp
Views: 355
Size: 40.6 KB

tk19 · 07-26-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgame

Thanks for all the time you've devoted to this effort, Seviien. Many, I'm sure, will reap the benefits of your labor. Not to mention, you can get about enjoying the game yourself soon!

Quick question, if you will. It's a brief note in your original post (presumably edited as well for this build?), but did you effectively say PCMs and League Totals were "locked" to track historically using these modifiers?

I appreciate all this as well. I don't know how easy it would be but if you were to do a sensitivity as to how these modifiers need to be changed with a shorter schedule, I would greatly appreciate it

Seviien · 07-26-2006, 12:23 AM

Endgame,
I meant that I checked the box in the "League Setup" menu on the "Strategy & Equivalencies" tab to auto adjust league totals and the box to auto import player-creation modifiers.

I fogot to include the charts. They're on the top post now.

sovereignstar · 07-26-2006, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seviien

Endgame,
I meant that I checked the box in the "League Setup" menu on the "Strategy & Equivalencies" tab to auto adjust league totals and the box to auto import player-creation modifiers.

What year did you start your tests at? Having those boxes checked would have no impact past the year 2005.

Edit: Eh, I should probably assume 1980, huh?

Seviien · 07-26-2006, 12:36 AM

All testing was done between 1901-1921. I threw out 1901-1915, 1921 and presented the averages from 1916-1920. All results, for both defaults and tests, were averages from 1916-1920.

Since career development factors are not included in the player creation mods... I'm pretty sure that the results are year agnostic. At the very worst, their impact wouldn't be all that large.

endgame · 07-26-2006, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

What year did you start your tests at? Having those boxes checked would have no impact past the year 2005.

Edit: Eh, I should probably assume 1980, huh?

Well, there's something beyond this of greater impact. Honestly, I can't quite put my finger on it, as I'm certainly not skilled in statistical analysis, but locking or auto-adjusting any variable hints at repetitive performances ranges that ultimately may have impact on a variety of levels. Like I said, I think the method is practical, but . . . I haven't quite settled on what it is troubling me about its application in a standard solo fictional league with myriad configurations. Although intuitively, I'm drawn to look at the PCMs' front end adjustment. Again, nothing blatantly suspect, more of a haunt I can't yet explain that is likely just me being me.

Seviien · 07-26-2006, 12:49 AM

I can allay any concerns about the factors not being year agnostic tomorrow. I'll just sim 1980-2001 using the same factors as one of my 1901-1921 sims.

JinAZ · 07-26-2006, 01:20 AM

Thank you once again for all this work! The latest update, and your subsequent adjustments, seem to have really improved the fit of the batters. It's a shame the pitchers aren't more in line with MLB, but it's a vast improvement and should make for a much more enjoyable experience.

I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your more modern-era simulation! -JinAZ

sovereignstar · 07-26-2006, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seviien

I can allay any concerns about the factors not being year agnostic tomorrow. I'll just sim 1980-2001 using the same factors as one of my 1901-1921 sims.

I think I'd feel better if you ran a 2006 fictional league and left the league totals and PCM boxes unchecked. Of course, I can't wrap my head around whether it would make a difference or not.

Seviien · 07-26-2006, 01:38 AM

I've got a sim running over night from 1901-1980 with the auto adjust boxes checked. In the morning, I'll group up the stats by decade. If each decade yeilds the same curve, then I'm comfortable concluding that the modifiers are year agnostic.

Seviien · 07-26-2006, 02:22 PM

The results from the 80-year sim tell me that the settings will work regardless of the year of your association. Below is a graph of modded curve error as % of default by decade. As you can see, there is nothing to suggest that my mods become systematically less acurate over time.

Also, I've tweaked the pitching settings a little. See the top post for details.

Doughnuts? · 07-26-2006, 02:57 PM

Someone should sticky this mofo.

07-26-2006, 12:08 AM	#48 (permalink)
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,076 Thanked 498x in 285 posts	Thanks for all the time you've devoted to this effort, Seviien. Many, I'm sure, will reap the benefits of your labor. Not to mention, you can get about enjoying the game yourself soon! Quick question, if you will. It's a brief note in your original post (presumably edited as well for this build?), but did you effectively say PCMs and League Totals were "locked" to track historically using these modifiers? __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________

07-26-2006, 12:14 AM	#49 (permalink)
tk19 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 66	Here are the results of the test I did. Both are from a 42 game season. The first has all speeds at 1. The second has development speed at 4 (because 42 games are about a fourth of 162). Players were fictional, but for this test I created 20 raw new players and put them all in single-A (the existing players in single-A I either moved to AA or AAA or released, or for two of them, I kept). Quick explanation of the tables: the third column is their role for the batters, whether a full time starter, part time starter, or backup. Then comes their player ID, then age, their potential on a 20-80 scale, and their current when initially created. The last columns are the player's progression towards their potential: it equals (current at date - original current) / (potential - original current). This is presented at four dates: opening day, midpoint of the season, end of the season, and the next January 1. As you can see, having the aging set at 1 seems too slow for development - it'll take the players 10 years to reach potential. But at aging of 4, it seems like players will take 2-3 years to reach potential. One thing I wonder is if I'm getting too much development in the offseason (which is much longer with a 42 game schedule). Maybe the ideal is to set the development to around 2 or 3 during the season, and back down to 1 in the offseason. If anyone has any thoughts, let me know! Last edited by tk19; 07-26-2006 at 08:59 AM.

07-26-2006, 02:22 PM	#59 (permalink)
Seviien All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 917 Thanked 10x in 9 posts	The results from the 80-year sim tell me that the settings will work regardless of the year of your association. Below is a graph of modded curve error as % of default by decade. As you can see, there is nothing to suggest that my mods become systematically less acurate over time. Also, I've tweaked the pitching settings a little. See the top post for details. Attached Images

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-25-2006, 11:58 PM	#46 (permalink)
Seviien All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 917 Thanked 10x in 9 posts	I don't think the defaults are as far off as the raw values would indicate. My strong suspicion is that Markus designed the multipliers to allow for customization within a band or subest of the overall development arc. For example, taking aging speed from the 1.000 default to the 0.001 extreme is the maximum down adjustment possible, but if the modifiers only account for say 30% of the aging curve and the 70% is hard coded, then the defaults are only "off" 30%. Granted... I have no idea if that's exactly how it works, but for a variety of reasons I'm pretty sure it's something along these lines. BTW... the 12262 adjustments are finished, and I've revised the post at the top of the thread (and the thread name) accordingly. From now on, I'll keep the most up to date settings in the top post. Thanks to all those who provided input. I really appreciate it. I hope everyone enjoys the settings; I'm still open to suggestions if anyone has them, and I'll do my best to keep the settings updated as future patches are released. However, once my MBA classes start in late August, I'm going to have a lot less flexibility with my time.

07-26-2006, 12:05 AM	#47 (permalink)
sovereignstar Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 263	Hmmm.. you'd think that as Markus made adjustments that your modifications would become less extreme (to an extent). You sure he was listening to you?

07-26-2006, 12:23 AM	#51 (permalink)
Seviien All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 917 Thanked 10x in 9 posts	Endgame, I meant that I checked the box in the "League Setup" menu on the "Strategy & Equivalencies" tab to auto adjust league totals and the box to auto import player-creation modifiers. I fogot to include the charts. They're on the top post now.

07-26-2006, 12:36 AM	#53 (permalink)
Seviien All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 917 Thanked 10x in 9 posts	All testing was done between 1901-1921. I threw out 1901-1915, 1921 and presented the averages from 1916-1920. All results, for both defaults and tests, were averages from 1916-1920. Since career development factors are not included in the player creation mods... I'm pretty sure that the results are year agnostic. At the very worst, their impact wouldn't be all that large.

07-26-2006, 12:49 AM	#55 (permalink)
Seviien All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 917 Thanked 10x in 9 posts	I can allay any concerns about the factors not being year agnostic tomorrow. I'll just sim 1980-2001 using the same factors as one of my 1901-1921 sims.

07-26-2006, 01:20 AM	#56 (permalink)
JinAZ Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 95 Thanked 1x in 1 post	Thank you once again for all this work! The latest update, and your subsequent adjustments, seem to have really improved the fit of the batters. It's a shame the pitchers aren't more in line with MLB, but it's a vast improvement and should make for a much more enjoyable experience. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your more modern-era simulation! -JinAZ

07-26-2006, 01:38 AM	#58 (permalink)
Seviien All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 917 Thanked 10x in 9 posts	I've got a sim running over night from 1901-1980 with the auto adjust boxes checked. In the morning, I'll group up the stats by decade. If each decade yeilds the same curve, then I'm comfortable concluding that the modifiers are year agnostic.

07-26-2006, 02:57 PM	#60 (permalink)
Doughnuts? All Star Reserve Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 704	Someone should sticky this mofo.