What the heck is wrong with my historical seasons?

[HitmanTerp]

First off, I want to caveat my questions and opinions here with the fact I'm an OOTP veteran. I've been playing since.. Hmmmm.. Many versions ago..

...and I've played entire historical seasons to their completion with results that were fairly realistic. My teams always finished close to where they finished in real life..

So, I've tried three different historical seasons as the Orioles recently. 1960, 1964 and 1966.. These were all teams that won 90 plus games, and the '66 team won the World Series..

ANYWAY.. I got about 40 games into the 1960 season and I was an abysmal 13 and 27 or something very close. So I figured, I was rusty and started over using the 1964 Orioles (an even better team) my results werent any better. I played til about game 50 in the season and I was about 14 games under .500..

Now I just started the 1966 season with a loaded team and already I've started 2-7.

I cant figure out what the heck is going wrong. I never had this problem in older versions.

[HitmanTerp]

More of the same in 1966... I'm 17-25 on June first..

I give up.. There is clearly something wrong with the historical simulations with 10.

[Spritze]

Your league totals should be fairly close, individual teams will vary, individual players will vary even more. There are some threads concerning historical leagues and how to get the numbers closer available for your perusal.

That said, I just finished 1969 and the Seattle Pilots won the American League title in their first (and only) year.

You never know, you know?!

[HitmanTerp]

True, but what bothered me was that I was getting the same results with different teams in different years..

BTW.. Congrats on pulling that one off..

Though, maybe you were helped since it seems the game hates Baltimore and I know they won the AL in '69 by a wide margin..

:-)

[SteveP]

You mostly have to work deeper into analyzing what is going on yourself. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about the way OOTP10 is handling historicals. This version got a lot of testing, including historicals.

Of course, you might have stumbled upon a quirk in the game that's affecting your teams. You would have to closely examine the stats from your seasons and compare them to real life and see if you can detect a significant difference at a detailed level. That would make it easier for others to comment.

On the other hand, you could be in a major slump. It happens.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by Spritze

That said, I just finished 1969 and the Seattle Pilots won the American League title in their first (and only) year.

You never know, you know?!

That should never happen, evn 1 time out of 1000, if the Pilots had the same personnel they historically did. Did you start this in 1969? Tommy Harper was the only half decent position player on that team, and Marty Pattin (ugh) and the bad starter version of Mike Marshall the best pitchers. I guess the computer could send Ray Oyler to the reserve squad and give Goosen 500 ABs in the outfield. It's still impossibly weird.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

That should never happen, evn 1 time out of 1000, if the Pilots had the same personnel they historically did. Did you start this in 1969? Tommy Harper was the only half decent position player on that team, and Marty Pattin (ugh) and the bad starter version of Mike Marshall the best pitchers. I guess the computer could send Ray Oyler to the reserve squad and give Goosen 500 ABs in the outfield. It's still impossibly weird.

I wouldnt say never unless you were using actual transactions.
A few trades and some injuries to the more talented teams in the division plus some lucky bounces and they squeak into the playoffs. Play their best while the other team hits a slump. Like the 1906 series.
Though i cant see what they could offer in a trade unless free agency was on.
But if you were just replaying the season with trades off i would agree with you.

[swampdragon]

A three year recalc would help Pattin and Harper a lot, and Goosen put up very good numbers in limited playing time, but Minnesota and Oakland are so much better than the rest of the division that I can't help feeling like this is the fault of the game's defensive modelling. The Pilots had a fair offense as cellar dwellers go, but their pitching and especially defense were woeful.

[Spritze]

Don Mincher = 52 HR's
Harper .340 with 17 HR's and 63 sb's
Brabender and Pattin won more than 20.
Mike Marshall in the pen.

The only editing I did was give Bouton a knuckleball.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by Spritze

Don Mincher = 52 HR's
Harper .340 with 17 HR's and 63 sb's
Brabender and Pattin won more than 20.
Mike Marshall in the pen.

The only editing I did was give Bouton a knuckleball.

I guess I could import Mickey Mantle and rename him Don Mincher. Harper's season is certainly within the realm of 3 year recalc possibility. How many games did the Pilots win? I'm fascinated by how this could be conceivable.

[Cowboys3356]

Originally Posted by HitmanTerp

First off, I want to caveat my questions and opinions here with the fact I'm an OOTP veteran. I've been playing since.. Hmmmm.. Many versions ago..

...and I've played entire historical seasons to their completion with results that were fairly realistic. My teams always finished close to where they finished in real life..

So, I've tried three different historical seasons as the Orioles recently. 1960, 1964 and 1966.. These were all teams that won 90 plus games, and the '66 team won the World Series..

ANYWAY.. I got about 40 games into the 1960 season and I was an abysmal 13 and 27 or something very close. So I figured, I was rusty and started over using the 1964 Orioles (an even better team) my results werent any better. I played til about game 50 in the season and I was about 14 games under .500..

Now I just started the 1966 season with a loaded team and already I've started 2-7.

I cant figure out what the heck is going wrong. I never had this problem in older versions.

Maybe you are just not a very good manager? In all seriousness have you tried just observing the season and leaving everything under CPU control?

[Rondell Tate]

I haven't tried it but a lot of guys swear by SteveP's work on getting more accurate first year stats.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by HitmanTerp

First off, I want to caveat my questions and opinions here with the fact I'm an OOTP veteran. I've been playing since.. Hmmmm.. Many versions ago..

...and I've played entire historical seasons to their completion with results that were fairly realistic. My teams always finished close to where they finished in real life..

So, I've tried three different historical seasons as the Orioles recently. 1960, 1964 and 1966.. These were all teams that won 90 plus games, and the '66 team won the World Series..

ANYWAY.. I got about 40 games into the 1960 season and I was an abysmal 13 and 27 or something very close. So I figured, I was rusty and started over using the 1964 Orioles (an even better team) my results werent any better. I played til about game 50 in the season and I was about 14 games under .500..

Now I just started the 1966 season with a loaded team and already I've started 2-7.

I cant figure out what the heck is going wrong. I never had this problem in older versions.

You've only played 40 or 50 games,you didn't even give it a chance.In my current MLB season,I fell to 24-30 with the 2009 Phillies,11 games out of first at the end of May/beginning of June.Since then,I've won 11 of 12 including a sweep of the first place Mets to move within 6 games of first with a 35-31 record.Its a long season,have patience.