Historical league question

[snake1399]

I am the commissioner of a historical league which began with the 1984 season. We are currently in mid-June and the stats in relation to history are pretty far out of whack in a lot of cases. Prime example, Wayne Krenchicki has 13 home runs already on the season, when he only 15 in his entire career.

I am using the 3-year recalc, but i was hoping for some decent accuracy with stats and i'm just not seeing it.

I'm looking for a recommendation on how someone else might run their historical league and how to achieve more accurate stats. I'm not looking for things to repeat history exactly otherwise there's no point in doing a historical league, but stats within reason would be nice!

any help or suggestions are much appreciated

thanks!
Snake

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by snake1399

I am the commissioner of a historical league which began with the 1984 season. We are currently in mid-June and the stats in relation to history are pretty far out of whack in a lot of cases. Prime example, Wayne Krenchicki has 13 home runs already on the season, when he only 15 in his entire career.

I am using the 3-year recalc, but i was hoping for some decent accuracy with stats and i'm just not seeing it.

I'm looking for a recommendation on how someone else might run their historical league and how to achieve more accurate stats. I'm not looking for things to repeat history exactly otherwise there's no point in doing a historical league, but stats within reason would be nice!

any help or suggestions are much appreciated

thanks!
Snake

I stopped using OOTP later than version 5 for historical seasons because of the way the new engine works (DIPS).

I have found most pitchers to end off with totally wrong stats, nothing resembling reality. The overall league stats were pretty accurate and this is what Markus was trying to achieve, league accuracy, even though it comes at the price of individual players being way off.

Like you, I don't expect players stats to be dead on, but I do expect players who were among league leaders in categories to be among the leaders in the game as well.

I don't expect Camilo Pascual (1969) to have better stats than Tom Seaver, Gaylord Perry, Mel Stottlemyre and Sam McDowell, among others, in 1969 as he did in the leagues I tried.

As far as batters, since the "gap" rating was implemented I see batters with way more triples and far less doubles than they really had though in some cases (ie Billy Williams, 1969) they didn't come anywhere near their triple totals. I don't know why the 2 ratings were combined.

Team records are way out of whack as well, obviously, since the players are mostly off. The Expos of 1969 going to the World Series? The Mets losing 107 games? Give me a break.

These are a few of the reasons can no longer play a historical season in the OOTP's since the DIPS engine came out. Whenever I find a baseball game out there I test how it works by using the 1969 season and OOTP, DIPS version, fails miserably.

[snake1399]

thanks Styx! I appreciate the response even tho it was disheartening to say the least LOL

Snake

[royalblue5]

Wow that was kind of depressing, I am in this league with Snake and am hopeful that our league plays out a little better than those of styx

Looking forward to more replies

[Jah]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I stopped using OOTP later than version 5 for historical seasons because of the way the new engine works (DIPS).

I have found most pitchers to end off with totally wrong stats, nothing resembling reality. The overall league stats were pretty accurate and this is what Markus was trying to achieve, league accuracy, even though it comes at the price of individual players being way off.

Like you, I don't expect players stats to be dead on, but I do expect players who were among league leaders in categories to be among the leaders in the game as well.

I don't expect Camilo Pascual (1969) to have better stats than Tom Seaver, Gaylord Perry, Mel Stottlemyre and Sam McDowell, among others, in 1969.

As far as batters, since the "gap" rating was implemented I see batters with way more triples and far less doubles than they really had. I don't know why the 2 ratings were combined.

Team records are way out of whack as well, obviously, since the players are mostly off. The Expos of 1969 going to the World Series? The Mets losing 107 games? Give me a break.

These are a few of the reasons can no longer play a historical season in the OOTP's since the DIPS engine came out. Whenever I find a baseball game out there I test how it works by using the 1969 season and OOTP, DIPS version, fails miserably.

Styx,

Man, you hit upon the same frustrations I've had with historical play, to the point where I've pretty much given up as well. Like you and Snake said, I don't expect the stats to be dead-on - and I don't mind some surprises here and there...as long as they're within the realm of believability. Unfortunately, I've had some unrealistic player performances (historically-speaking), as well as a few out of whack team records.

Harking back to my "History of Baseball" league (starting in 1901 using actual transactions and 3-year recalc), here are my lowlights illustrating the disappointment (IMHO) of historical play...

Tommy Leach - hit .372 in 1902 and .344 in 1903 - a real-life .269 career hitter.

Ducky Holmes - hit .341 in 1902 and .368 in 1903 - a real-life .282 career hitter.

David Altizer (who??) - had a career year hitting .345 in 1906 (with 206 hits) - in real life, he hit .250 lifetime, and never higher than .269.

And like you mentioned, many pitchers are really off...

Harry Felix (??) - won 1 game in real life, but has been a perennial 20-game winner each year, amassing over 100 wins in 6 seasons.

Ralph Caldwell - 25-13 in 1905 - 3 career wins in real life.

Highball Wilson - 26-10 in 1903 - 14 career wins in real life.

Pop Williams - 22-12 in 1903 - 16 career wins in real life.

Frank Morrissey - 25-10 in 1901 (much better record than his teammate, Cy Young!) - only 1 career win in real life!

Now I know these are just a few examples, and the game isn't supposed to produce a duplicate replay (nor would I want it to) - but something's way off with these guys, and some of the real-life league leaders are nowhere to be found.

I've also noticed how it affects the team records - the 1903 Washington Senators went 81-60 in my replay and won the World Series...in real life, they were 43-94 that year (with virtually the same roster since I do actual transactions!) The 1906 Boston Braves went 87-68 and also won the World Series. In real life that year? 49-102! I've also tried single-season replays of years I'm more familiar with (from the late-60's and early-70's), with similarly disappointing results.

Sorry for going on and on, but you just got me thinking, Styx, about why I probably won't buy the new version this year. Since I play strictly historical, the occasionally wacky results are ruining it for me each season I complete. In fact, my league (now in 1908) has been on hiatus since last fall, and I have little interest in getting back to it.

Peace,
Jah

[snake1399]

wow, so essentially these historical leagues become a fictional league using real players LOL. nice!

disappointing to say the least, guess we'll just let it run its course with the thought that nothing is for certain!

[Jah]

Originally Posted by snake1399

wow, so essentially these historical leagues become a fictional league using real players LOL. nice!

disappointing to say the least, guess we'll just let it run its course with the thought that nothing is for certain!

So true! It wouldn't be so bad if these guys had decent careers otherwise and a "career year" popped up every once in a while...but that's not the case. I mean, I could see a pitcher who had a few 15-win seasons during a steady big league career reeling off 25 wins one time, but guys who had ONE big league win?? - unrealistic, unbelievable, and simply doesn't make sense. And I know some folks say, "Well, anything can happen" - but with the recalc function within the context of a historical league, things like this really shouldn't happen at all.

Also, like I mentioned, when these "unknowns" become stars, it comes at the expense of some of the players you'd expect to see at the top of the league leaderboards - in some cases, guys who had good careers in real life can't crack the rotation when the likes of Frank Morrissey and Harry Felix are taking up spots!

I usually see these examples a handful of times each season. Early on, I tried to rationalize their performances - but it started happening so frequently with random guys that it really ruined the historical experience for me. And, individual performances aside, the spillover to team records made things even worse. The 1903 Washington Senators were a truly awful team in real life, but somehow in OOTP they're World Champs!

[BaseballMan]

I think the problem with those guys with 1 year careers or players who took a year off is that the game seems to think they had career years were they have 0 for stats. Maybe if the AI could give them ratings based on the games they played. If a player played 30 games in 1930, missed a year, 27 in 1932, well averaging 28 games a year should not give him the ability to steal 100 bases in a year. I find this more the case with those players.

However i dont find historical players with normal careers to be as bad as what youve seen. Ive seen Ty Cobb finish with 4,300 hits but a .367 avg.

I think it depends on how much difference you are willing to accept. I can accept Babe Ruth hitting 500 hrs but not below that unless his career had a major injury.

[StyxNCa]

As I said earlier, Markus' goal was to have the league stats look right, and that he pretty much accomplished even though individual teams and player stats are out of whack.