Random debut - potential calculation

Hoiles · 08-17-2013, 09:06 PM

I noticed a little quirk in this mode. It seems that in every random debut league (with recalc off), real-life journeymen such as Ben Paschal and George Harper become Ted Williams. Looking closer, I think it's because they started their careers in the dead-ball era and had some good but unspectacular seasons in the 20s. The random debut adjusts players in the dead ball era, so if they hit more than 15 hrs they have Bonds- like power potential, which makes sense. However, for eg Harper's 18 hr year in 1925 gives him a power potential of 18/20 based on his debut year (1916) instead. it would have been fine if it happened in 1916, but not in 1925 where he has ratings almost as high as Babe Ruth. There are probably other instances.

It's not a big deal if you have recalc on so the potential ratings don't matter as much, but I think it could be improved a bit if the era adjustments were based on the actual season instead of the debut season.

Left-handed Badger · 08-17-2013, 09:54 PM

I dont know what is with it, but the 1920s werent that uberpowerful. In 1927, Ruth led with 60 HRs, and Gehrig was 2nd with 47. But one thing I found out which I bet few know is Tony Lazzeri made a 1-2-3 Yankee lead, but Lazzeri only hit 18 HRs. The most by a non-Yankee was Ken Williams of the Browns with 15. And only two AL teams other than the Yankees even hit 50 HRs. (I cant remember for sure I believe it was A's and Tigers and their team totals were something like 55 and 51, just barely over 50)

VanillaGorilla · 08-18-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoiles

I noticed a little quirk in this mode. It seems that in every random debut league (with recalc off), real-life journeymen such as Ben Paschal and George Harper become Ted Williams. Looking closer, I think it's because they started their careers in the dead-ball era and had some good but unspectacular seasons in the 20s. The random debut adjusts players in the dead ball era, so if they hit more than 15 hrs they have Bonds- like power potential, which makes sense. However, for eg Harper's 18 hr year in 1925 gives him a power potential of 18/20 based on his debut year (1916) instead. it would have been fine if it happened in 1916, but not in 1925 where he has ratings almost as high as Babe Ruth. There are probably other instances.

It's not a big deal if you have recalc on so the potential ratings don't matter as much, but I think it could be improved a bit if the era adjustments were based on the actual season instead of the debut season.

A couple of things to add to your observations:

If you are not using recalc, then the players develop like fictional players. You get a starting point for Paschal and he may develop into a great player for 20 years, or he may fizzle, just as any "Joe Unknown" might.

Recalc does not erase player development. I use recalc with player development, and I really like the results. A Paschal may become a monster (and for a few seasons, he often does) but his RL stats will dampen the likelihood of him becoming Ruth or Williams over 20 years, but he may win an MVP or two. And if he is an MVP/All Star, then he is a 4.5-5 star player. The potential ratings are looking at his peak years to come (if that is how you have it set). It doesn't tell you that he will be 5 stars for 10 years, but he has the potential to be a 5 Star player for a period of time (that may be one season, and one season only, if that).

No normalization process is perfect. That there are imperfections in the OOTP normalization process is not an indictment of the game, at all. Dead Ball adjustments are really tricky, and there is no perfect way of doing them (yes, even those you find on BBREF are based on personal preferences of the person who devised the formulation).

This doesn't mean that OOTP doesn't have a good normalization method (or that what you find on BBREF is not good, either...not that the two are terribly dissimilar....). Could it be better? Of course. However, what I may think is better, you might not (and Markus might not...final arbiter for the game, obviously).

Hoiles · 08-18-2013, 08:31 PM

Yes, I think the normalization algorithms are quite effective in evening out players across eras. I noticed that if Paschal is imported in his best year of 1925 (with random debut), he gets good but not great ratings, so I deduced that the inflated ratings when imported as a rookie are likely due to deadball era adjustments, when the season occurred after it.

I think the adjustments do a great job with 95% of players, but just pointing out a small subset where players may be overrated (some deadball era pitchers with 20+ stuff ratings is another). It's not really a big issue though, especially with recalc on, as most of the HOFers were great players in real life, and most great players in real life tend to be good players in the game.

08-17-2013, 09:06 PM	#1
Hoiles All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 572	Random debut - potential calculation I noticed a little quirk in this mode. It seems that in every random debut league (with recalc off), real-life journeymen such as Ben Paschal and George Harper become Ted Williams. Looking closer, I think it's because they started their careers in the dead-ball era and had some good but unspectacular seasons in the 20s. The random debut adjusts players in the dead ball era, so if they hit more than 15 hrs they have Bonds- like power potential, which makes sense. However, for eg Harper's 18 hr year in 1925 gives him a power potential of 18/20 based on his debut year (1916) instead. it would have been fine if it happened in 1916, but not in 1925 where he has ratings almost as high as Babe Ruth. There are probably other instances. It's not a big deal if you have recalc on so the potential ratings don't matter as much, but I think it could be improved a bit if the era adjustments were based on the actual season instead of the debut season.

08-17-2013, 09:54 PM	#2
Left-handed Badger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: at the altar of the baseball god praying for middle infield that can catch the ball Posts: 2,036	I dont know what is with it, but the 1920s werent that uberpowerful. In 1927, Ruth led with 60 HRs, and Gehrig was 2nd with 47. But one thing I found out which I bet few know is Tony Lazzeri made a 1-2-3 Yankee lead, but Lazzeri only hit 18 HRs. The most by a non-Yankee was Ken Williams of the Browns with 15. And only two AL teams other than the Yankees even hit 50 HRs. (I cant remember for sure I believe it was A's and Tigers and their team totals were something like 55 and 51, just barely over 50) __________________ -Left-handed groundball specialist -Strikeouts are for wimps

08-18-2013, 08:31 PM	#4
Hoiles All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 572	Yes, I think the normalization algorithms are quite effective in evening out players across eras. I noticed that if Paschal is imported in his best year of 1925 (with random debut), he gets good but not great ratings, so I deduced that the inflated ratings when imported as a rookie are likely due to deadball era adjustments, when the season occurred after it. I think the adjustments do a great job with 95% of players, but just pointing out a small subset where players may be overrated (some deadball era pitchers with 20+ stuff ratings is another). It's not really a big issue though, especially with recalc on, as most of the HOFers were great players in real life, and most great players in real life tend to be good players in the game.