Lotta things to like about OOTP 10, but ...

[Tekneek]

If this is the game, and not something about the way you're playing it, then you could let the game simulate through entire seasons and see this same trend played out. If it doesn't, then it wouldn't be the game.

[mm7607]

It has to be a problem with the game. I use a fictional league using 1940 settings and one with 1968 settings. Way to many 20 run games and even had a 40-2 game.

[JoeGoNets]

If further research reveals that there may be a problem (more high-run innings than in real life):

It could be that the game tries to replicate a pitcher "having his good stuff" or "not having his good stuff" by factoring in, in a small way, what happened against the previous X batters into whether the pitcher gets the present batter out. In theory, this would be a good feature, in my view. I loved Strat-o-matic dearly, but it falls short in that a pitcher can be unlucky but can't have a bad day in terms of stuff. Performance is static in Strat until fatigue sets in. On the other hand, OOTP may try to take advantage of the computer by replicating "good stuff" dynamically.

So hypothetically, if the game works as described in the previous paragraph and if there is a problem, the effect just described would merely have to be turned down a bit.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by mm7607

It has to be a problem with the game. I use a fictional league using 1940 settings and one with 1968 settings. Way to many 20 run games and even had a 40-2 game.

Obviously there's something wrong with your settings to have a 40-2 game in ANY era,let alone in the 60's.Again,give us some more info rather than spitting out things like 40-2.What settings are you using,league totals? modifiers? fictional? historical? # of teams? DH? I mean just saying things like 40-2 and dismissing the game isn't very helpful.

[Pdubya64]

Hmmm... what about your setting for pitcher fatigue? The default is LOW, and I usually bump it up one notch when I play a historical MLB game. Just a thought.

[battists]

Originally Posted by mm7607

It has to be a problem with the game. I use a fictional league using 1940 settings and one with 1968 settings. Way to many 20 run games and even had a 40-2 game.

This is a completely separate issue from the one the OP posted, which was talking about too many games where there is one big inning. You're referring to a problem with the total number of runs scored. Obviously, we'd like to make everyone happy, but let's not compare apples and oranges!

Meanwhile, the tricky part about the OP's post is coming up with a baseline. I don't know of any resource that would let us EASILY understand the average number of "big innings" per season or something like that. Could you go through and count them up? Sure, if you had the time...

Without that, even if the OP went through and counted the occurrences in OOTP, what would we compare it to?

I'm not saying it's hopeless, it's just tough to decide exactly how the system should behave without (like RchW intimated) a precise definition.

Does anyone have access to data like that?

Thanks!

Steve

[endgame]

Larry's utility - or one he presented previously - did show the numbers of runs scored per inning. It may have been as early as v2007 or so, but it was an interesting picture as I recall with a surprising number of big first innings.

Now to address your other question, how do we compare that to real life data? I have no clue, but I have to believe there's data available to collect and run through motions to come up with that; just a matter of finding out who knows where it is and who could write the program to spit out the results. In fact, I'm guessing that data is already out there and available to the right people who know where to look. LGO? Your SABR folks have that data laying around somewhere? Average runs scored per inning over a season?
Maybe I'll PM him and have him take a quick look at the thread if he hasn't already done so. He's never short on opinion and possibility.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by JoeGoNets

I loved Strat-o-matic dearly, but it falls short in that a pitcher can be unlucky but can't have a bad day in terms of stuff. Performance is static in Strat until fatigue sets in.

In the versions of computer Strat that I played (from 1997-2002 releases), fatigue could set in as a result of bad luck, meaning that if the pitcher allowed five base runners in the first inning (or six over two innings, or seven over three), he'd pitch 'fatigued' for the rest of the game. That sounds to me like what you're asking for.

Originally Posted by battists

Meanwhile, the tricky part about the OP's post is coming up with a baseline. I don't know of any resource that would let us EASILY understand the average number of "big innings" per season or something like that. Could you go through and count them up? Sure, if you had the time...

Without that, even if the OP went through and counted the occurrences in OOTP, what would we compare it to?

I'm not saying it's hopeless, it's just tough to decide exactly how the system should behave without (like RchW intimated) a precise definition.

Does anyone have access to data like that?

Elias Sports Bureau does. According to George Will's book "Men At Work", page 42, a 'big inning' is defined as three or more runs by one team, and during the 1985-7 AL seasons, teams averaged 142 1/2 big innings per year (the small ball Angels 162 and everyone else 141). During one of those years (he doesn't specify which) AL teams averaged one 5+ run inning per 110 innings batting, while the NL averaged one per 135. All of that information was obtained from Elias.

According to proponents of big inning baseball, in 75% of all games the winning team scores more runs in one inning than the losing team scores in the entire game. (No attribution, but again probably speaking of the 1985-8 period.)

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Dargone

Okay, again, I would sim a few season with the same settings and then adjust from there. It could be an offensive "spike" or there could be something out of whack with the settings/league totals.

How would one notice big innings by simming?

I see the same thing, even against my best pitchers, but in fairness it seems like my offense does most of it's scoring in one inning. My two leagues are fictional though (one league in in 1902, the other is in 1909) so it isn't homeruns doing it but hit after hit after hit so it seems even worse.

Also walks seem a lot higher. I have a pitcher who is the all time leader in walks/9 innings, something like .80 and even he is walking people at a rate of 4.5/9 innings in this version. Of course I don't gripe too much because my batters are drawing walks like there is no tomorrow. I have one guy on pace to have 350 walks in 162 games. I'm sure it will come down but he averages 115 walks per season but in this version I think he is going to beat his record of 131 rather easily.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Rich, his problem isn't with the number of runs being scored, it's with those runs coming mostly in big innings. Where would he look to find what proportion of his runs came in 3+ run innings?

Good question. I'm not sure the game has that stat available. It would be a great stat to have. Maybe I'll ask in another thread.

Despite that, we should still use some credible data collection techniques. At the very least the OP could check what has been asked. It would take only 5 minutes. Maybe we will see that runs are 20% higher than normal in his league, that means we have a problem. After that we can look at other ways to determine what goes on.

All I want is that posters who claim something is off or wrong or broken in the game participate in the efforts of those of us who want to help by doing what we ask.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

How would one notice big innings by simming?

Looking at box scores.

Something I do a lot of.

[knockahoma]

In the versions of computer Strat that I played (from 1997-2002 releases), fatigue could set in as a result of bad luck, meaning that if the pitcher allowed five base runners in the first inning (or six over two innings, or seven over three), he'd pitch 'fatigued' for the rest of the game. That sounds to me like what you're asking for.

I remember that, Curtis. I think it must have been on the cards, as well, or maybe it was an old APBA feature? But, it's a very good idea to incorporate into OOTP, I think. It replicates the patience of most managers when watching fireworks through 10 or 12 batters.

If I could give this 5 stars I would. How about five asterisks?

*****

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by endgame

LGO? Your SABR folks have that data laying around somewhere?

Possibly. But I had to let my SABR membership lapse this year due to, uh, 'cash flow issues.' I do plan on rejoining next year.

Originally Posted by endgame

He's never short on opinion and possibility.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

The first thing that comes to my mind would be 1) to check Baseball-Reference, since it now has a ton of statistics which one can call up, and/or 2) check Retrosheet, and use their Play-by-Play files and software tools to obtain the data.

[PhillieFever]

Just poking around,I found this,which at least is a starting point.As of June 3(roughly 50 games in),the Tampa Bay Rays lead all of the Major leagues,with 15 innings of 5 runs or more,the Tigers and Dodgers are behind them with 11 each while the Blue Jays and Twins have 10 each.The MLB average is 6.With that,we get a ballpark figure of 1 5+ run inning every 75 innings as a league average.So far in my OOTP season(2009 MLB qickstart) I've had 3 5+ run innings in 18 games played so far(1 every 54 innings).Obviously this is a small sample size,but I will track this the rest of the season then compare it to hopefully some updated real MLB data.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

Just poking around,I found this,which at least is a starting point.As of June 3(roughly 50 games in),the Tampa Bay Rays lead all of the Major leagues,with 15 innings of 5 runs or more,the Tigers and Dodgers are behind them with 11 each while the Blue Jays and Twins have 10 each.The MLB average is 6.With that,we get a ballpark figure of 1 5+ run inning every 75 innings as a league average.So far in my OOTP season(2009 MLB qickstart) I've had 3 5+ run innings in 18 games played so far(1 every 54 innings).Obviously this is a small sample size,but I will track this the rest of the season then compare it to hopefully some updated real MLB data.

Hmm, if you are looking at each team and there are two teams per game isn't that 18 innings per game (2X9 innings). So it would be 18*9*2 = 324 innings. Three 5+ run innings is 3/324 = 1 per 108 innings.

It doesn't change the relative number. The MLB example would be 1 per 150 innings.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by RchW

Hmm, if you are looking at each team and there are two teams per game isn't that 18 innings per game (2X9 innings). So it would be 18*9*2 = 324 innings. Three 5+ run innings is 3/324 = 1 per 108 innings.

It doesn't change the relative number. The MLB example would be 1 per 150 innings.

All of this data is taken on a single team basis.With that said,you have 6 5+ run innings for every 50 games(450 innings) per team.Per game it would be 12 for every 100 games(900 innings) which is still 1 5+ run inning for every 75 chances.

[molarmite]

I thought this was happening a lot at first as well. The first month of my season, it was always heavily leaned to one side so I would never get a save. But after that first month, things have gotten a lot more realistic and I've been happy.

Just play more games and it will all start to balance out.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by RchW

Looking at box scores.

Something I do a lot of.

Takes too much time to go through an entire seasons box scores if you actually have any intent on playing another season sometime in your lifetime. Actually playing the game is something I do a lot of.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Takes too much time to go through an entire seasons box scores if you actually have any intent on playing another season sometime in your lifetime. Actually playing the game is something I do a lot of.

So do I. Your point relative to this thread is....?