Did league creation contact ratings get drastically tweaked?

[Kuttner]

I fired up OOTP 14 and started a fictional, non-historical league from scratch. Simmed out 20 years and started. 2 months into the season, no one is hitting .325+ and 16 starting pitchers have sub 1.50 ERAs. I stated snooping the hitters and only 2 players have contact ratings over 6 (out of 10)! My OOTP13 league had 119 (19%) For kicks I started up 2 more leagues and only 17 inaugural guys had contact ratings over 6 (.03%) and 15 (.02%) in the next. That's 3 leagues.

Normally I'm the first person to respond with "Too small a sample size!" but I've been playing OOTP for years and have never seen such a disproportionate swing in any league, let alone 3. I would keep creating new leagues to see if I could get additional data points but that doesn't sound too fun. Anybody else seeing this?

Thanks!

[Markus Heinsohn]

You sure you did not change any settings here? In my tests (30 teams fictional, full minors) things look different. However keep in mind that the league average recently in MLB was something close to .250, and the defaults in OOTP 14 model this on average.

[Kuttner]

Thanks Marcus. I play pretty vanilla leagues, but I'll double check just in case. I found the default settings to be perfect in OOTP13 so I didn't change anything in OOTP14. I have financials off, but I doubt that would change anything. I don't import any historical settings.

[ike121212]

I made a thread about this over the weekend. With 1.000 pcm's, my batting ratings are down across the board. Contact and Gap were the hardest hit, and hit consistently across several leagues. There were approximately 70% fewer 12+ (20 point scale) batters in my league. I raised the PCM to 1.100 to compensate, as so many below average CON players in the majors was hard to look at after all these years.

I was hoping this was an intentional change, but overshot a little. I liked the idea of creating more average players, and fewer high end stars.

[Markus Heinsohn]

I just took a look at my latest long term sim (default MLB setup, simmed 100 years), and I have (on a scale from 2-8) seven players with a 7 in contact and 50 with a 6 in contact. That looks good to me

[Biggio509]

I have noticed a lot less stars in my 1871 game that I started. No complaint just an observation. There tends to be a lot more average guys when in past versions they seemed to be too many good hitters. Also the fielding ratings seem more historically accurate.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I just took a look at my latest long term sim (default MLB setup, simmed 100 years), and I have (on a scale from 2-8) seven players with a 7 in contact and 50 with a 6 in contact. That looks good to me

In a 48 team league, after 43 seasons with 1.000 pcm's, my 14 league has 125 batters with a CON of 12+ (our of 20). An identical league in 13 has 669.

On a 2-8 scale, 14 gives 57 6+, 13 has 338.

[ike121212]

Stealing from another thread:

On a 20 point scale, these are the changes I'm seeing (compared to a similar 13 league):

40% reduction in 12+ power
75% reduction in 12+ contact
75% reduction in 12+ gap
40% reduction in 12+ eye
25% reduction in 12+ k

As for pitchers, I see no significant change in ST, CON, or MOV.

[Kuttner]

I just looked at the same comparison - 24 teams with only 1 level of minors with 1.000 PCM for Contact:

OOTP13: 122 players with >6
OOTP14: 3 players with >6
1-10 scale

[olivertheorem]

It does appear that CON ratings are lower, and possibly others as well. The pertinent question (which I'm not sure how to answer) is whether or not this makes the game jive more with reality.

[Biggio509]

I have wondered how much this really matters. League totals drive stats. Correct? So if your league totals are right then the numbers for CON, etc. should just drive disparity between players. So if 10 is average then players with 10 should hit around league average. At least that is what I would think. So the difference should not be in batting averages with contact, note these should be done for some reason they have dropping, but in the distribution from players. The only real change I have seen has been how many more average guys there are. There are fewer above average and much fewer stars in my 19th century league than past versions.

I kind of like that. It is easy to play the green and blue number guys but do you choose the 11 CH guy over the 10 CH guy with better speed and eye? It seems like the game is much less about the ratings now and looking at how they perform.

Honestly, I have never understood pitching ratings. It seems often the guy with lower pitching ratings is outperforming the guy I would choose. Maybe I still haven't learned the right ratings to look at. Then again I haven't looked at GB% enough. If you defense is good a GB pitcher with less ratings might look better than a more talented pitcher and opposite if you have bad D.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

It does appear that CON ratings are lower, and possibly others as well. The pertinent question (which I'm not sure how to answer) is whether or not this makes the game jive more with reality.

That is possible drug crackdowns or something else has caused BAs, etc. to drop the last couple of years. Maybe it is lack of expansion and the teams are finally adjusting to the need for more players? Maybe a combination of several things?

[mike2228]

I'm noticing this as well.

[ike121212]

This is definitely an interesting release to get used to. The overall offensive talent level is down. Replacement level offense and pitching is way up. Top tier relief pitching is less common, and they get drafted in the first round (rather than 3rd-4th).

I've been crusading for some of these changes for years, so it's been a fun change. I knocked a few offensive PCM's up a notch, because the reduction seems a little too harsh. Granted, it's cosmetic. It's hard to look at what was a double A player as a viable major league player after all these years.

[Riverdome]

Originally started my own thread bt will instead add to this one. Using default settings I'm seeing contact ratings lower than expected. Seems nearly impossible to develope a player into a blue contact rating and even the greens are hard to come by. Have not yet adjusted PCMs but that seems to be necessary if trying to be consistent with previous releases.

[tejdog1]

There is DEFINITELY something up with the contact ratings in this release compared to prior versions.

[Thundercrack]

To add to the chorus, started a 24 team fictional, did not touch any settings. Several seasons in, a number of starters have ERA's in the 1.00's, and they have that consistently every season. I know I can adjust PCM's, but something is not right.

[Riverdome]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

There is DEFINITELY something up with the contact ratings in this release compared to prior versions.

I don't know if "there is something up" with the ratings, they are just down. The question is, is OOTP trying to emulate MLB which has been very pitching heavy for a number of years now, or is the reduction unintentional. Either way I seem to have the power to reverse the change by editing settings. Not something I'm used to having to do but that's the beauty of OOTP - I have the power.

[Tycobbler]

Do we perhaps have the More/Less pitching , More/Less offense boxe(s) checked in our dynamically evolving leagues? Just wondering if either of these are factoring into what we're seeing.

[Thundercrack]

Originally Posted by Tycobbler

Do we perhaps have the More/Less pitching , More/Less offense boxe(s) checked in our dynamically evolving leagues? Just wondering if either of these are factoring into what we're seeing.

No, league evolution is off.