Your 'ultimate' computer baseball game?

robc · 12-19-2009, 11:19 AM

Hi,

I've been thinking about this myself, so I am curious what other proples opinions are.

What would be the ultimate type of baseball game?

Here are some of my thoughts:

1) The toughest question for me is, do I want a game that can come very close to simulating a players stats for a given year, or do I want a game that tries to capture a players skill and then bases performance on that? The second one is more subjective and harder to verify the game got the simulation correct.

For example, should a pitcher who gave up a lot of hits and walks, but not a lot of runs be a good or bad pitcher? Was there a 'clutch' skill involved that the player has that allowed him to buckle down and get outs when needed? Or, is it mostly luck that his hits and outs were distributed in a way that he didn't give up a lot of runs. Should they be successful in a simulation because they didn't give up a lot of runs, or should it be more likely they won't be successful because they were hittable more often then not?

What do you think about this scenario? Should Pete Vuckovich usually perform well or mediocre in a baseball simulation game. I've taken this from Action! PC Baseball's site.

Players are rated using every available published statistic as well as expert subjective analysis. Each subjective rating—defensive range, outfield arm, catcher arm, base running, bunt, hit and run, clutch pitcher rating, and more—is essential to accurately translate real-life characteristics of the game. For example, the clutch pitcher rating helps to accurately portray the effectiveness of a pitcher such as Pete Vuckovich in 1982, who allowed a high number of hits and walks, yet had a 3.34 earned run average and won the CY Young award. While he may allow a high number of base runners, it enhances his ability to get out of situations with players on base.

2) This is an easy one for me. I like games that allow for career play instead of being tied to one season.

3) Should the game have a development engine, or should a player's performance each year be tied to his performance in real life? If a player was typically excellent in his career but stunk in 1990, should the game model that? Or should a game look at their overall performance and have a typical development curve figuring 1990 was a fluke? This is a tougher one for me. I think I want the player to perform how they did in real life, since I don't have what years they did well memorized.

4) The above point kind of assume where talking historical players. Do a lot of people like fictional players? So far I have always used historical in the games I play.

Rob

jbergey22 · 12-19-2009, 01:48 PM

I like fictional for many of the reasons you talk about in your post.

Andy Pettite may/may not have an ability to get clutch outs to make him a winning pitching despite giving up a lot of baserunners. By playing fictioonal I dont have to try and figure this one out and wonder if there is something missing in regards to guys like Pettite/Vuckovich.

Eugene Church · 12-19-2009, 02:25 PM

I want fictional players and a career mode. A replay league with real players would not interest me. I already know the outcome of real baseball, if it is done accurately. And if not done accurately, I would be disappointed.

That way I have no expectations on player performance and therefore am not disappointed.

I played 11 great seasons using historical players, but was disappointed when great players did poorly. This was using OOTP6.51 when you could input accurate player ratings yourself, but still had aberrations like Tom Seaver being 7-22 with a 5.00 ERA, in spite of great ratings. Hank Aaron hit homers, but did not hit for average, despite very good ratings.

robc · 12-19-2009, 03:46 PM

A note about accuracy...

It is inevitable that a computer baseball game will use random numbers (or dice rolls) to generate the outcomes. So, even if a simulation was 'perfect' in how it models players, you will always get variation. This can be mitigated if the code tries to nudge the outcomes back to their expected values by comparing the simmed stats to the real stats throughout the season and try to 'correct' them.

For example (I think I posted something similar in a different post),
If a player got 200 hits in 600 AB (.333 avg) in real life, a computer simulation should fall between .313 and .353 68% of the time. It should fall between .293 and .373 95% of the time. As you can see that is a pretty big range. You can usually expect it within the first range and it should almost always be between the second range.

So, even a very accurate simulation will always have some variance. You would never know exactly how they will perform, just how you can expect them to perform.

Ktulu · 12-19-2009, 05:15 PM

Easy answer for me... the flexibility and depth of OOTP combined with the beauty of The Show.

Malleus Dei · 12-20-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktulu

Easy answer for me... the flexibility and depth of OOTP combined with the beauty of The Show.

Yeah, that's about as good as it could get.

Sweed · 12-20-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robc

I want a game that tries to capture a players skill and then bases performance on that.

^^^ This.

My dynasty started in version 4 and continuing into version X was started with a real player roster (Rolen17's 2002 roster file). The league, now in 2019, is mostly fictional players now. I like both types of players but am never disappointed in a real player coming out different than real life. This is the beauty of OOTP to me, the what if? factor.

With real life work and family I don't have time to play both my current dynasty and a historical game. If I did though it wouldn't matter to me if Mantle ended up the HR king and Aaron was injured and out of the league in 1961. My only caveat is I would want the game to get the initial talent right and then let the chips fall where they may.

My ultimate game? Hell, growing up I never thought I'd see something like OOTP so, I've already received more than I ever imagined I would. I'd like to see OOTP tied to something like The Show. Can you imagine the reviews once the "world of baseball game players" saw what they were missing in player creation, progression, career archs, franchise\general manager features, leagues running a 100yrs plus, almanac\historical stats, etc. in OOTP for the last 10 years while playing their "eye candy" baseball?

Bluenoser · 12-20-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robc

what would be the ultimate type of baseball game?

Easy answer - OOTP.

robc · 12-20-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceM

Easy answer - OOTP.

I'm not sure if Markus is reading this thread, so I don't know if you are earning any points.

Hmmm, or IS BruceM Markus!

BaseballMan · 12-20-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene Church

I want fictional players and a career mode. A replay league with real players would not interest me. I already know the outcome of real baseball, if it is done accurately. And if not done accurately, I would be disappointed.

That way I have no expectations on player performance and therefore am not disappointed.

I played 11 great seasons using historical players, but was disappointed when great players did poorly. This was using OOTP6.51 when you could input accurate player ratings yourself, but still had aberrations like Tom Seaver being 7-22 with a 5.00 ERA, in spite of great ratings. Hank Aaron hit homers, but did not hit for average, despite very good ratings.

I get what your saying but ive always been happy with results somewhere in the ballpark. If Ruth only hits 45 homers in 1927 i can live with that. If he hits 13 then yeah there better be a big reason like a major injury. But i dont think we can we know the outcome. Every injury, trade, lineup change makes each league unique.
I like having expectations for players. I dont think i could get into knowing nothing about a player. I wouldnt have anything to measure the player against. It would be too easy for me persoanlly to accept anything can happen because its fictional and i dont think i would like seeing a player hit 85 hr in 1998 under the excuse that anything can happen.

robc · 12-22-2009, 08:39 AM

When I play, it is pretty much strictly like a strategy game. I like to make the decisions, see how the players are doing, and compare that to their real life performances. I wish the play by play had an option to remove all of the filler so I could just see the results, such as Mattingly singles to left, Henderson advanced to third. I know a lot of people enjoy the verbose play by play, but it isn't for me.

Lately I have given OOTP a break and have been trying the PureSim demo. It isn't quite as feature rich as OOTP, but it has a certain something that has made it more fun. I love how it lets you know when a player made a great defensive play (or missed a play) based on their ratings. Shaun has make a lot of changes over the past month or two. I'm not sure if I will jump ship and go to PureSim soon, but he has improved it enough to at least warrent consideration. I recommend people try the demo and give iot a chance for themselves. I will probably play one more season of OOTP so I can better make the decision as to which to make my main game.

12-19-2009, 11:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
robc All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,660 Thanks: 412 Thanked 251x in 153 posts	Your 'ultimate' computer baseball game? Hi, I've been thinking about this myself, so I am curious what other proples opinions are. What would be the ultimate type of baseball game? Here are some of my thoughts: 1) The toughest question for me is, do I want a game that can come very close to simulating a players stats for a given year, or do I want a game that tries to capture a players skill and then bases performance on that? The second one is more subjective and harder to verify the game got the simulation correct. For example, should a pitcher who gave up a lot of hits and walks, but not a lot of runs be a good or bad pitcher? Was there a 'clutch' skill involved that the player has that allowed him to buckle down and get outs when needed? Or, is it mostly luck that his hits and outs were distributed in a way that he didn't give up a lot of runs. Should they be successful in a simulation because they didn't give up a lot of runs, or should it be more likely they won't be successful because they were hittable more often then not? What do you think about this scenario? Should Pete Vuckovich usually perform well or mediocre in a baseball simulation game. I've taken this from Action! PC Baseball's site. Players are rated using every available published statistic as well as expert subjective analysis. Each subjective rating—defensive range, outfield arm, catcher arm, base running, bunt, hit and run, clutch pitcher rating, and more—is essential to accurately translate real-life characteristics of the game. For example, the clutch pitcher rating helps to accurately portray the effectiveness of a pitcher such as Pete Vuckovich in 1982, who allowed a high number of hits and walks, yet had a 3.34 earned run average and won the CY Young award. While he may allow a high number of base runners, it enhances his ability to get out of situations with players on base. 2) This is an easy one for me. I like games that allow for career play instead of being tied to one season. 3) Should the game have a development engine, or should a player's performance each year be tied to his performance in real life? If a player was typically excellent in his career but stunk in 1990, should the game model that? Or should a game look at their overall performance and have a typical development curve figuring 1990 was a fluke? This is a tougher one for me. I think I want the player to perform how they did in real life, since I don't have what years they did well memorized. 4) The above point kind of assume where talking historical players. Do a lot of people like fictional players? So far I have always used historical in the games I play. Rob

12-19-2009, 05:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ktulu Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: BC Posts: 2,225 Thanks: 185 Thanked 167x in 118 posts	Easy answer for me... the flexibility and depth of OOTP combined with the beauty of The Show. __________________ "The ice is getting even more thinner, my friend!"

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

12-19-2009, 01:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
jbergey22 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,078 Thanks: 151 Thanked 137x in 105 posts	I like fictional for many of the reasons you talk about in your post. Andy Pettite may/may not have an ability to get clutch outs to make him a winning pitching despite giving up a lot of baserunners. By playing fictioonal I dont have to try and figure this one out and wonder if there is something missing in regards to guys like Pettite/Vuckovich.

12-19-2009, 02:25 PM	#3 (permalink)
Eugene Church Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,080 Thanks: 100 Thanked 100x in 52 posts	I want fictional players and a career mode. A replay league with real players would not interest me. I already know the outcome of real baseball, if it is done accurately. And if not done accurately, I would be disappointed. That way I have no expectations on player performance and therefore am not disappointed. I played 11 great seasons using historical players, but was disappointed when great players did poorly. This was using OOTP6.51 when you could input accurate player ratings yourself, but still had aberrations like Tom Seaver being 7-22 with a 5.00 ERA, in spite of great ratings. Hank Aaron hit homers, but did not hit for average, despite very good ratings.

12-19-2009, 03:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
robc All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,660 Thanks: 412 Thanked 251x in 153 posts	A note about accuracy... It is inevitable that a computer baseball game will use random numbers (or dice rolls) to generate the outcomes. So, even if a simulation was 'perfect' in how it models players, you will always get variation. This can be mitigated if the code tries to nudge the outcomes back to their expected values by comparing the simmed stats to the real stats throughout the season and try to 'correct' them. For example (I think I posted something similar in a different post), If a player got 200 hits in 600 AB (.333 avg) in real life, a computer simulation should fall between .313 and .353 68% of the time. It should fall between .293 and .373 95% of the time. As you can see that is a pretty big range. You can usually expect it within the first range and it should almost always be between the second range. So, even a very accurate simulation will always have some variance. You would never know exactly how they will perform, just how you can expect them to perform.

12-22-2009, 08:39 AM	#11 (permalink)
robc All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,660 Thanks: 412 Thanked 251x in 153 posts	When I play, it is pretty much strictly like a strategy game. I like to make the decisions, see how the players are doing, and compare that to their real life performances. I wish the play by play had an option to remove all of the filler so I could just see the results, such as Mattingly singles to left, Henderson advanced to third. I know a lot of people enjoy the verbose play by play, but it isn't for me. Lately I have given OOTP a break and have been trying the PureSim demo. It isn't quite as feature rich as OOTP, but it has a certain something that has made it more fun. I love how it lets you know when a player made a great defensive play (or missed a play) based on their ratings. Shaun has make a lot of changes over the past month or two. I'm not sure if I will jump ship and go to PureSim soon, but he has improved it enough to at least warrent consideration. I recommend people try the demo and give iot a chance for themselves. I will probably play one more season of OOTP so I can better make the decision as to which to make my main game.